* [TUHS] Early non-Unix filesystems? [not found] <mailman.1.1458266402.23080.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> @ 2016-03-18 2:13 ` Johnny Billquist 2016-03-18 2:36 ` Charles Anthony 2016-03-18 2:36 ` [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 4, Issue 12 Doug McIlroy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Johnny Billquist @ 2016-03-18 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2016-03-18 03:00, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote: > It's a bit off-topic, but what were non-Unix filesystems like around 1969-1970? > The PDP-7 filesystem has i-nodes (file metadata) and filenames separate > from the i-nodes. This allows hard links and thus a non-tree structured > filesystem. > > This has always struck me to be one of the most important features of > the Unix filesystem: names separated from the rest of the file metadata, > and arbitrary hard links so that there is no preferred filename. > > Were these features in other contemporaneous filesystems? I don't know exactly how contemporary ODS-1 is. It's the file system used on RSX-11, and I think it should atleast trace back to around 1972, but I can't say more for sure. Anyway, ODS-1, just like the Unix file system, have the directory hold just the filename and a file identifier (pretty much the same as inode number). There are of course some differences in details, but I would say it is very similar to how Unix works. ODS-1 do not have reference counting, but instead allows dangling directory entries that do not point to valid files. Instead ODS-1 have a generation counter for each file identifier, so that when it is reused, links to the old file will not accidentally refer to the new file. I would think that something like Multics had something similar, but I have no idea about that one... Johnny -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Early non-Unix filesystems? 2016-03-18 2:13 ` [TUHS] Early non-Unix filesystems? Johnny Billquist @ 2016-03-18 2:36 ` Charles Anthony 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Charles Anthony @ 2016-03-18 2:36 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at update.uu.se> wrote: > On 2016-03-18 03:00, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote: > > >> I would think that something like Multics had something similar, but I > have no idea about that one... > > Mutlics doesn't separate the name and the data. It did do something really interesting tho; segments could have multiple names. Given a segment "foo", you could "add_name foo bar". "foo" and "bar" now refer to the same segment, much like a UNIX link. However, if you move the segment to another directory, the names follow -- they are part of the segment metadata, not entries in the segment's directory. This was leveraged by the binder; when binding an executable segment with multiple entry points, the binder will add the entry points to the names of the segment, and the shell would select the correct entry point based on the name. bound_dir_cmds_ list rename delete You can use 'bound_dir_cmds_$list' or 'list'. -- Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160317/6215ce68/attachment.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 4, Issue 12 [not found] <mailman.1.1458266402.23080.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> 2016-03-18 2:13 ` [TUHS] Early non-Unix filesystems? Johnny Billquist @ 2016-03-18 2:36 ` Doug McIlroy 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Doug McIlroy @ 2016-03-18 2:36 UTC (permalink / raw) > Were these features [arbitrary hard links] in other contemporaneous filesystems? Multics had arbitary "links", which were distinguished from "branches"--the actual file. Links and branches coexisted in directories. Unix was consciously derived from this model, but simplified so that only links have names and branches live elsewhere (the inode list). The architecture is described in http://www.multicians.org/fjcc4.html. This paper is dates from 1964 or 1965; it was certainly authoritative in 1969. I don't know whether it evolved further. Christopher Strachey and Joe Stoy independently conceived a model isomorphic to Unix for OS 6 at Oxford. The two systems were essentially contemporaneous. I am not aware of other systems that allowed multiple names for one file, though clearly the scent was in the air at the time. doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-03-18 2:36 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <mailman.1.1458266402.23080.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> 2016-03-18 2:13 ` [TUHS] Early non-Unix filesystems? Johnny Billquist 2016-03-18 2:36 ` Charles Anthony 2016-03-18 2:36 ` [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 4, Issue 12 Doug McIlroy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).