Symlinks vs Hardlinks

The cluster focuses on debates about using symbolic links (symlinks) and hard links for file management, highlighting their pros, cons, cross-filesystem limitations, and platform support as alternatives to duplication or other approaches.

📉 Falling 0.4x DevOps & Infrastructure
2,191
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#1798
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
1
2008
3
2009
39
2010
84
2011
90
2012
71
2013
73
2014
69
2015
89
2016
171
2017
99
2018
91
2019
208
2020
119
2021
163
2022
277
2023
181
2024
177
2025
176
2026
10

Keywords

e.g newfile.so NTFS HEADING netbsd.org NEW OLD NT POSIX OS links symbolic windows file folder usr directory posix link hard

Sample Comments

stewbrew • Nov 7, 2016 • View on HN

It's an interesting approach until you want to create a symlink.

mercurial • Nov 28, 2011 • View on HN

Why not hardlinks instead of symlinks? This would make much more sense.

srathbun • Aug 13, 2012 • View on HN

Umm, there's this thing called hard/soft links...

DanielRibeiro • Nov 28, 2011 • View on HN

Hardlinks cannot link across partitions. Symlinks can. Therefore symlinks always work, so it is easier to use.

vkazanov • Aug 4, 2017 • View on HN

...and? What's wrong with simlinks?

krunck • Feb 21, 2025 • View on HN

Does it support symlinks? Because there is always stuff I want in two different places.

fferen • Jul 26, 2012 • View on HN

Don't worry, with the magic of symlinks anything is possible!

ryanjkirk • Jan 24, 2022 • View on HN

That would be a hard link, though they can't cross filesystem boundaries.

bxc • Nov 28, 2011 • View on HN

Symlinks don't work on all filesystems, so don't always work.

matthewsommer • Nov 1, 2024 • View on HN

Why not use symlinks (on Linux, not sure of the equivalent on Windows)?