Gee^^^Wizardly Lore: The Great Dot Mystery and the Coming of the Superfast Minifile

So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?) file
is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one (I've got one
that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small files in the directory)
and while I haven't found those first two bits o' elementary information
explicitly explicated yet I ran across this amazing statement (my caps):

"Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does not use
any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not stored in a data
block but in the inode itself. This policy can save some disk space (no
data block needs to be allocated) and speeds up link operations (there is
no need to read a data block when accessing such a link). Of course, the
space available in the inode is limited so not every link can be
implemented as a fast symbolic link. The maximal size of the target name
in a fast symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND THIS SCHEME
TO SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."

http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html

Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing for
all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and other files
encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user names and
passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even see a USB buffer
stuffed in there).

That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether . . .
something happened . . . .

And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's multiple
copies of the inode list.

<wanders back to reading>

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a
new entity has come into being--the system itself.
No matter what the "goal" of the system, it
immediately begins to exhibit system behavior; that
is, to act according to the general laws that govern
the operation of all systems. Now the system itself
has to be dealt with.

< _Systemantics_

 

Re: Gee^^^Wizardly Lore: The Great Dot Mystery and the Coming of theSuperfast Minifile

On Dec 9, 6:22 am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?) file
> is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one (I've got one
> that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small files in the directory)
> and while I haven't found those first two bits o' elementary information
> explicitly explicated yet I ran across this amazing statement (my caps):
>
> "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does not use
> any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not stored in a data
> block but in the inode itself. This policy can save some disk space (no
> data block needs to be allocated) and speeds up link operations (there is
> no need to read a data block when accessing such a link). Of course, the
> space available in the inode is limited so not every link can be
> implemented as a fast symbolic link. The maximal size of the target name
> in a fast symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND THIS SCHEME
> TO SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
>
> http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
>
> Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing for
> all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and other files
> encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user names and
> passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even see a USB buffer
> stuffed in there).
>
> That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether . . .
> something happened . . . .
>
> And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's multiple
> copies of the inode list.
>
> <wanders back to reading>

inodes? are they like commodes?

headkase
>
> --
> tinmimu...@hotmail.com
>
> smeeter 11 or maybe 12
>
> mp 10
>
> mhm 29x13
>
> When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a
> new entity has come into being--the system itself.
> No matter what the "goal" of the system, it
> immediately begins to exhibit system behavior; that
> is, to act according to the general laws that govern
> the operation of all systems. Now the system itself
> has to be dealt with.
>
> < _Systemantics_

 

Once upon a time in a magickal land far far away the being called headkase
stirred from its deep slumber and pronounced to usenet:

: On Dec 9, 6:22 am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: : So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?)
: : file is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one
: : (I've got one that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small
: : files in the directory) and while I haven't found those first two
: : bits o' elementary information explicitly explicated yet I ran
: : across this amazing statement (my caps):
: :
: : "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does
: : not use any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not
: : stored in a data block but in the inode itself. This policy can
: : save some disk space (no data block needs to be allocated) and
: : speeds up link operations (there is no need to read a data block
: : when accessing such a link). Of course, the space available in the
: : inode is limited so not every link can be implemented as a fast
: : symbolic link. The maximal size of the target name in a fast
: : symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND THIS SCHEME TO
: : SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
: :
: : http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
: :
: : Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing
: : for all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and
: : other files encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user
: : names and passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even
: : see a USB buffer stuffed in there).
: :
: : That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether .
: : . . something happened . . . .
: :
: : And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's
: : multiple copies of the inode list.
: :
: : <wanders back to reading>
:
: inodes? are they like commodes?

I used to have one o dem commode 64 puters.
:
: headkase
: :
: : --
: : tinmimu...@hotmail.com
: :
: : smeeter 11 or maybe 12
: :
: : mp 10
: :
: : mhm 29x13
: :
: : When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a
: : new entity has come into being--the system itself.
: : No matter what the "goal" of the system, it
: : immediately begins to exhibit system behavior; that
: : is, to act according to the general laws that govern
: : the operation of all systems. Now the system itself
: : has to be dealt with.
: :
: : < _Systemantics_

--
Steve Leyland
mhm32x16 Smeeter#24 WSD#41 Most Hated Usenetizen Of All Time#1
Top Asshole on the Net#4 Usenet Ruiner#11 Lits Slut#1
Alcatroll Labs Inc (bongwater maintenance dept)

=^MEOW MEOW ARMY^=

Marilyn Monroe had six toes.
======================================================================
"Oh, and by the by ... although it is not my particular responsibility
to do so, I do nevertheless apologize for Mr. Leyland, who seems
convinced that anyone who might pass by this doorway to our little
gallery is a child rapist. In a sense, he is much like the ratty
kitty he claims to be in his interminable signature line ... he
wanders about and stops occassionally at the stoop here to spray and
defecate, then moves on and is gone for a few days or so ... no doubt
spraying, defecating and retching up hairballs elsewhere ... then
returns to mark his "territory" again. I realise he is little more
than a malodorous nusiance, but a nuisance nevertheless."

HMS Victor Victorian, pedophile posting naked pictures of young boys,
alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
======================================================================
"Warning to all: Steve Leyland is a trolling twat of the highest order.
Killfile the muppet now and move on. Even the briefest of searches on
his past UseNet posts will reveal the truth. You have been warned.
*plonk*"

bear, uk.rec.motorcycles
======================================================================
"I didn't delete any part of your meaningless, pointless, worthless
post in order to clearly demonstrate that you are the nemesis of
Usenet: the crossposting, non-editing, diagram-creating worthless,
dickless, brainless, gutless, mindless, ball-less, spineless, flaccid,
obese, fish-belly pale, ugly, VD-ridden, moronic, bald, hunch-backed,
flat-footed, odoriferous, obnoxious, fecal-smelling, buck-toothed,
physically handicapped, fungus-infected, HIV positive, mud-packing,
masturbating, whining, simpering, self-important, arrogant, egomaniacal
POS that takes up more bandwidth than a despicable binary-poster, and
for no apparent reason beyond seeing his own defecatory vomitus
slithering down the screen in vile green rivulets."

Admiral Halsey, alt.sailing.asa
======================================================================
"I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And "Thou shalt not," writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires."

William Blake.
======================================================================
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 19.
======================================================================
"When the Earth has been ravaged and the animals are dying, a tribe of
people from all races, creeds and colours shall put their faith in
deeds, not words, and make the land green again. They shall be known as
Warriors of the Rainbow, protectors of the environment."


|\ _.-'~~""'~`'~)
/, ~-,__,,,.'~ ,-;;--''
|,4) ./ ' ; ;/'
'-~~;'@ ( ; ;
_.--'' _.-_..' .;.'
(,_..----''' (,..--''


meow

 

Don't fight it, Steve Leyland...Just lie down and try to relax:

>Once upon a time in a magickal land far far away the being called headkase
>stirred from its deep slumber and pronounced to usenet:
>
>: On Dec 9, 6:22 am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: : So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?)
>: : file is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one
>: : (I've got one that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small
>: : files in the directory) and while I haven't found those first two
>: : bits o' elementary information explicitly explicated yet I ran
>: : across this amazing statement (my caps):
>: :
>: : "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does
>: : not use any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not
>: : stored in a data block but in the inode itself. This policy can
>: : save some disk space (no data block needs to be allocated) and
>: : speeds up link operations (there is no need to read a data block
>: : when accessing such a link). Of course, the space available in the
>: : inode is limited so not every link can be implemented as a fast
>: : symbolic link. The maximal size of the target name in a fast
>: : symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND THIS SCHEME TO
>: : SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
>: :
>: : http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
>: :
>: : Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing
>: : for all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and
>: : other files encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user
>: : names and passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even
>: : see a USB buffer stuffed in there).
>: :
>: : That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether .
>: : . . something happened . . . .
>: :
>: : And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's
>: : multiple copies of the inode list.
>: :
>: : <wanders back to reading>
>:
>: inodes? are they like commodes?
>
>I used to have one o dem commode 64 puters.

I had won of those. Damb thing didn't sound a *bit* like Lionel
Ritchie.

--
"Memo to God: Last two things to do: (1) Cancel Wavy. (2) Turn out the lights."
--Mimus submits a rewrite for the ending of The Bible.


*****************************************
* *
* Wavy G *
* mail me at: *
* godsspeciallamb @ gmail.com *
* *
* *
*****************************************

 

Re: Gee^^^Wizardly Lore: The Great Dot Mystery and the Coming ofthe Superfast Minifile

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:22:04 -0500, mimus blather'd thus:

> So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?) file
> is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one (I've got
> one that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small files in the
> directory) and while I haven't found those first two bits o' elementary
> information explicitly explicated yet I ran across this amazing
> statement (my caps):
>
> "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does not
> use any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not stored in a
> data block but in the inode itself. This policy can save some disk space
> (no data block needs to be allocated) and speeds up link operations
> (there is no need to read a data block when accessing such a link). Of
> course, the space available in the inode is limited so not every link
> can be implemented as a fast symbolic link. The maximal size of the
> target name in a fast symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND
> THIS SCHEME TO SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
>
> http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
>
> Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing for
> all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and other files
> encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user names and
> passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even see a USB buffer
> stuffed in there).
>
> That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether . . .
> something happened . . . .
>
> And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's multiple
> copies of the inode list.
>
> <wanders back to reading>

Just which kernel version/ distro are you usin'?!?! 1994 is a fur piece
back in open source years.



--
Dr E--
mhm 17x1
SGM #3
smeeter #13
FWAC:"Old No.-7"
Surgeon General-Relativity
Commodore/Upper-Half/1st Virginia Volunteers/CEsium Brigade
NF & TCIB. ATFFFIQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The flames kindled on the fourth of July, seventeen hundred and
seventy six, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished
by the feeble engines of despotism." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:36:24 +0000, Dr Entropy wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:22:04 -0500, mimus blather'd thus:
>
>> So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?) file
>> is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one (I've got
>> one that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small files in the
>> directory) and while I haven't found those first two bits o' elementary
>> information explicitly explicated yet I ran across this amazing
>> statement (my caps):
>>
>> "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does not
>> use any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not stored in a
>> data block but in the inode itself. This policy can save some disk space
>> (no data block needs to be allocated) and speeds up link operations
>> (there is no need to read a data block when accessing such a link). Of
>> course, the space available in the inode is limited so not every link
>> can be implemented as a fast symbolic link. The maximal size of the
>> target name in a fast symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND
>> THIS SCHEME TO SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
>>
>> http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
>>
>> Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing for
>> all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and other files
>> encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user names and
>> passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even see a USB buffer
>> stuffed in there).
>>
>> That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether . . .
>> something happened . . . .
>>
>> And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's multiple
>> copies of the inode list.
>>
>> <wanders back to reading>
>
> Just which kernel version/ distro are you usin'?!?! 1994 is a fur piece
> back in open source years.

Ubuntu/Breezy Badger (no longer supported, the bastards, except by a few
hold-out package-repositories-- the last time I installed a package, it
was from a repository run by the Malta LUG).

But I was browsing around for info on the ext2 filesystem.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

You want a job and a lizard to ride?

< _The Einstein Intersection_

 

Re: Gee^^^Wizardly Lore: The Great Dot Mystery and the Coming ofthe Superfast Minifile

mimus wrote:
> So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?) file
> is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one (I've got one
> that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small files in the directory)
> and while I haven't found those first two bits o' elementary information
> explicitly explicated yet I ran across this amazing statement (my caps):
>
> "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does not use
> any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not stored in a data
> block but in the inode itself. This policy can save some disk space (no
> data block needs to be allocated) and speeds up link operations (there is
> no need to read a data block when accessing such a link). Of course, the
> space available in the inode is limited so not every link can be
> implemented as a fast symbolic link. The maximal size of the target name
> in a fast symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO EXTEND THIS SCHEME
> TO SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
>
> http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
>
> Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing for
> all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and other files
> encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user names and
> passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even see a USB buffer
> stuffed in there).
>
> That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether . . .
> something happened . . . .
>
> And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's multiple
> copies of the inode list.
>
> <wanders back to reading>
>
As is often the case these days, wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inode

No need for me to provide urls to other info - the wiki author dudes
have done well.

--
nuts

 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:13:21 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> So I'm trying to find out what and where exactly the "." (pseudo-?)
>> file is in my Linux ext2 hard-drive filesystem and how to fix one (I've
>> got one that _must_ be oversized, 68K with only two small files in the
>> directory) and while I haven't found those first two bits o' elementary
>> information explicitly explicated yet I ran across this amazing
>> statement (my caps):
>>
>> "Ext2fs implements fast symbolic links. A fast symbolic link does not
>> use any data block on the filesystem. The target name is not stored in
>> a data block but in the inode itself. This policy can save some disk
>> space (no data block needs to be allocated) and speeds up link
>> operations (there is no need to read a data block when accessing such a
>> link). Of course, the space available in the inode is limited so not
>> every link can be implemented as a fast symbolic link. The maximal size
>> of the target name in a fast symbolic link is 60 characters. WE PLAN TO
>> EXTEND THIS SCHEME TO SMALL FILES IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
>>
>> http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/linux/ext2intro.html
>>
>> Get that? storing small files right in their inodes? just the thing for
>> all those annoying little one or two-line configuration and other files
>> encountered by the kernel as it runs around, like user names and
>> passwords, shmall and shmmax, and so on (one could even see a USB
>> buffer stuffed in there).
>>
>> That was in 1994. I wonder if it's implemented now. Or whether . . .
>> something happened . . . .
>>
>> And just where _are_ the damned inodes, anyway? I hope there's multiple
>> copies of the inode list.
>>
>> <wanders back to reading>
>>
> As is often the case these days, wikipedia is a good place to start:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_link
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inode
>
> No need for me to provide urls to other info - the wiki author dudes
> have done well.

That's pretty much where I started, and I ended up reading the above-cited
presumably classic paper from 1994 . . . .

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Given a manifold M with a submanifold N, N can be knotted in M
if there exists an embedding of N in M which is not isotopic to N.
Traditional knots form the case where N = S1 and M = S3.

< Deep wisdom from on high (Wikipedia)