7

I've found that I need to use hard links with a particular program (Ableton Live) that is unable to see aliases/symlinks, which is of course how I have all my working files organized. But making hard links is creating what appears to be duplicates of the original file.

Do they actually take up as much space as the original? Or is the filesystem (OSX in this case) merely showing the size of the actual data on disk, and the fact that it is being referenced in two places does not actually double the amount of data?

Improve this question
3

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9

The second thing you said is exactly correct. The file contents only exist once on disk. A hard link is an extra reference, which costs very little space - the size of a directory entry, which is the length of the filename plus a few bytes.

I don't know if this applies to OSX, but in the version of GNU coreutils I have handy, du is aware of hard links, so you can use it to get an accurate report of the total size of a set of files. If it finds multiple links to a file, it only adds it to the total once. ls -l on the other hand does the wrong thing and adds everything it sees in a directory for its total line.

$ ls -sl
total 296
296 -rw-r--r-- 1 user group 300324 Feb 17 19:08 f1
$ du
296     .
$ ln f1 f2
$ ls -sl
total 592
296 -rw-r--r-- 2 user group 300324 Feb 17 19:08 f1
296 -rw-r--r-- 2 user group 300324 Feb 17 19:08 f2
$ du
296     .
$ cp f1 f3
$ ls -sl
total 888
296 -rw-r--r-- 2 user group 300324 Feb 17 19:08 f1
296 -rw-r--r-- 2 user group 300324 Feb 17 19:08 f2
296 -rw-r--r-- 1 user group 300324 Feb 17 19:08 f3
$ du
592     .
$

The ultimate demonstration would be to create a huge file, more than half the size of the disk. Then see how many hard links you can create to it. Should be quite a lot.

Improve this answer
8
  • Excellent, this is what made sense to me and is exactly what I was hoping for! The only catch of sorts is that I need to make sure I don't overlook the fact that these are hard links when I look at them, since OSX's GUI shows them as regular directories of a given size, which obviously they aren't exactly. But that shouldn't really be a problem as this is only my workstation and I'm doing this for a very specific use-case of my own. Thanks for confirming!
    – JVC
    Commented Feb 18, 2017 at 0:26
  • One followup question. If hard links are really just pointers, why do they take so long to create? It actually does seem like it's duplicating all the content... or is it just that it's creating pointers for every file in the target directory recursively, and in my case that can be thousands of files?
    – JVC
    Commented Feb 18, 2017 at 2:16
  • Creating a single hard link should be practically instant. It's not possible to create a hard link to a directory, so I don't know what you're talking about with the recursive linking. If you're creating a tree of hard links, you'll be doing a mkdir() for every directory in the tree, and a link() for every regular file. The normal ln command doesn't do recursion though.
    – user41515
    Commented Feb 18, 2017 at 15:03
  • Yeah I came to the conclusion that what I was trying to do was really not going to work, and what I thought I had done was probably not what really happened. I've ended up having to just re-think the way I organize my files, which is a real shame because the alias/symlink approach I have now, works beautifully on so many levels. All because one program won't recognize symlinks. Sigh.
    – JVC
    Commented Feb 18, 2017 at 19:41
  • WumpusQ.Wumbley, actually, I believe I read long ago that Mac OS "Time Machine backups" are made by use of directory hard links. But that may be incorrect; I never investigated it personally.
    – Wildcard
    Commented Jan 27, 2018 at 1:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .