Hi,
When I type :
# ls -l myFolder
I get the following output :
drwxr-xr-x 3 guest guest 4096 mar 7 15:44 myFolder
What does the number "3" stands for ?
If myFolder were a file it would be the number of physical links
linking to this file, but, for a folder I don't understand what it is.
Thanks for your help,
C=E9dric
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
cedric.louyot (13)
|
3/7/2007 3:30:43 PM |
|
redcic wrote:
> When I type :
>
> # ls -l myFolder
>
> I get the following output :
>
> drwxr-xr-x 3 guest guest 4096 mar 7 15:44 myFolder
>
> What does the number "3" stands for ?
> If myFolder were a file it would be the number of physical links
> linking to this file, but, for a folder I don't understand what it is.
It _is_ the number of physical links. You have the folder name
(myFolder), the "." inside it (myFolder/.) and (at a guess) the ".." of
a subfolder (myFolder/wibble/..), they all link to the same place.
Geoff
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
Geoff
|
3/7/2007 3:53:54 PM
|
|
Geoff Winkless <usenet-at-geoff-dot-dj@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
> redcic wrote:
>> When I type :
>> # ls -l myFolder
>> I get the following output :
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 guest guest 4096 mar 7 15:44 myFolder
Are you sure? So you have a myFolder inside myFolder?
In order to get the info about the directory and not about the
contents of the directory, you need to do an "ls -ld myFolder".
>> What does the number "3" stands for ?
>> If myFolder were a file it would be the number of physical links
>> linking to this file, but, for a folder I don't understand what it is.
>
> It _is_ the number of physical links. You have the folder name
> (myFolder), the "." inside it (myFolder/.) and (at a guess) the ".."
> of a subfolder (myFolder/wibble/..), they all link to the same place.
Actually, it means that the OP already has one directory inside his myFolder.
$ mkdir zz
$ ls -ld zz
drwxr-xr-x 2 vilmos vilmos 4096 2007-03-07 09:17 zz
$ mkdir zz/zz
$ ls -ld zz
drwxr-xr-x 3 vilmos vilmos 4096 2007-03-07 09:17 zz
Vilmos
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
vilmos2 (252)
|
3/7/2007 5:19:30 PM
|
|
On Mar 7, 9:30 am, "redcic" <cedric.lou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I type :
>
> # ls -l myFolder
>
> I get the following output :
>
> drwxr-xr-x 3 guest guest 4096 mar 7 15:44 myFolder
>
> What does the number "3" stands for ?
> If myFolder were a file it would be the number of physical links
> linking to this file, but, for a folder I don't understand what it is.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> C=E9dric
It is called the number of "i-nodes". When a disk partition is
formatted an i-node table is created which limits the total number of
files that can live in that partition.
If you want to see the i-node number of each file, just type:
% ls -li
This is an interesting exercise:
% echo this is one file > original
% ln original clone
% ls -li original clone
both files have the same i-node number. Actually the two i-nodes point
to the same file. You may remove either 'original' or 'clone' and the
other one remains. Only when you remove the last i-node is the file
gone.
Windows doesn't have that. All they have is the crappy shortcuts.
-Ramon
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
ramon (1465)
|
3/7/2007 5:21:31 PM
|
|
Vilmos Soti wrote:
> Geoff Winkless <usenet-at-geoff-dot-dj@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>> It _is_ the number of physical links. You have the folder name
>> (myFolder), the "." inside it (myFolder/.) and (at a guess) the ".."
>> of a subfolder (myFolder/wibble/..), they all link to the same place.
>
> Actually, it means that the OP already has one directory inside his myFolder.
Isn't that what I said?
Geoff
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
Geoff
|
3/8/2007 10:05:53 AM
|
|
Geoff Winkless <usenet-at-geoff-dot-dj@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
> Vilmos Soti wrote:
>
>> Geoff Winkless <usenet-at-geoff-dot-dj@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>> It _is_ the number of physical links. You have the folder name
>>> (myFolder), the "." inside it (myFolder/.) and (at a guess) the ".."
>>> of a subfolder (myFolder/wibble/..), they all link to the same place.
>> Actually, it means that the OP already has one directory inside his
>> myFolder.
>
> Isn't that what I said?
Yes, you are right. I didn't read carefully. I am sorry.
Vilmos
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
vilmos2 (252)
|
3/8/2007 5:11:01 PM
|
|
|
5 Replies
31 Views
(page loaded in 0.099 seconds)
|