Re: NFS: what happens to local space when remote space is imported?

From: Tlhingan (tlhingan1_at_optonline.net)
Date: 12/31/04


Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:28:19 -0500

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:10:03 GMT, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Tlhingan wrote:
>> What happens to the space occupied by the local /usr/ports when a
>> directory of the same name is imported? does the local drive get
>> "bigger "? Does one recover local disk real-estate by importing
>> directories that are common?
>>
>> O.K., once again, for me more than you;
>> If the directories were already on there, and then I import on top of
>> them, I'm actually using the nfs server directory - but what happens
>> to the space that was on my disk which had (have?) those directories?
>
>What happens to wallpaper when you put new wallpaper on top of it?
>Nothing. It's still there. It still weighs something and could burn
>if the building caught fire. And it still has the same picture or
>design on it that it did before; you just can't see it because
>the new layer of wallpaper covers it up.
>
>And so it is with Unix filesystems. The "mount" command places a
>new directory on top of the old directory. The new directory is
>the root of another filesystem. The old directory is still there;
>it simply can't be seen because it is obscured by the new one.
>
>Now, you may ask what happens to the files that were "in" the
>directory that you covered up. But in Unix, there is no such
>thing as files really being "in" a directory. A unix filesystem
>simply gives a number (the i-node number) to every file, and a
>directory is a list of filenames and the numbers they go with.
>The directory doesn't contain any files; it's just a list that
>contains numbers which the system can use to find files.
>
>So, some files "in" that directory may still be accessible if
>they are listed by some other directory (that is not obscured)
>as well. This is commonly called a "hard link", although I
>think that's a misnomer since every file is "hard linked"
>in a sense. If a file is named only by some directory that's
>obscured, then file will not be accessible, but it is still not
>gone. When you unmount, it will still be there. And, in fact,
>if you open the file before you obscure it, you can continue
>working with it, just as you can continue working with an open
>file after it has been deleted.
>
>If the idea of obscuring one filesystem with another doesn't
>make sense, it might help to understand that Unix uses a virtual
>filesystem in addition to the individual on-disk filesystems.
>The virtual filesystem keeps track of which directories in the
>filesystem namespace ("/", "/usr/ports", "/etc/passwd") correspond
>to what on the actual filesystems. You can think of it as a
>data structure which includes a mapping between mount points
>and real (disk-based) filesystem root directories. It knows
>that the "/" directory refers to some object that allows
>access to the root of one filesystem, and it knows that "/usr"
>refers to some other object that allows access to the root of
>a different filesystem on a different partition. The virtual
>filesystem data structures exist only in memory, so changing
>them (with the "mount" and "umount" commands) doesn't affect
>the disk.
>
> - Logan
Thank you for the wallpaper analogy - I got it right away. The other
stuff just blew my mind ... I'll read it again tomorrow :)
-Tlhingan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels sooo good.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: NFS: what happens to local space when remote space is imported?
    ... And so it is with Unix filesystems. ... the root of another filesystem. ... if you open the file before you obscure it, ... and real filesystem root directories. ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: Maximum nuber of subdirectories in a dir
    ... Logan Shaw wrote: ... >Manish wrote: ... This may require you to write it, since such a filesystem ... the filing system on Network Appliance fileservers allows ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: UFS Documentation
    ... Logan Shaw writes: ... > Filesystem for UNIX". ... FWIW, it's no longer the first link. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: ZFS theoretical capacity
    ... Logan Shaw wrote: ... >> Yesterday at the Solaris 10 bootcamp, the instructor told us that ZFS ... ZFS: Zetta byte filesystem. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)