The "munlink" utility is really just a few line wrapper around the unlink() syscall, so should be OK for any environment. In both cases they avoid a lot of overhead that "rm" is doing.
Modern Linux distros have "unlink", which is almost the same as munlink except only accepts a single filename as an argument, while munlink can handle multiple filenames at once, but this can be worked around in the caller. Cheers, Andreas On Sep 25, 2025, at 06:51, David Simpson - Staff in University IT, Research Technologies / Staff Technoleg Gwybodaeth, Technolegau Ymchwil via lustre-discuss <[email protected]> wrote: We don’t appear to have munlink installed on any of our servers or clients on a system we are going to tidy a bit. Is there any concern about installing it from the below - on a client/utility server? (I’m assuming not, but would be good to have affirmation) In general, I can’t find much information on munlink. I assume it’s modified unlink. Name : lustre-client-tests Arch : x86_64 Version : 2.12.7 Release : 1.el7 The utility-server-client in question is on lfs 2.12.7. Infrastructure servers are also on this version. We are planning to get off this system soon, however we are considering using munlink instead of rm to do some tidying. regards David ---------- David Simpson - Senior Systems Engineer ARCCA, Redwood Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3NB David Simpson - peiriannydd uwch systemau ARCCA, Adeilad Redwood, King Edward VII Avenue, Caerdydd, CF10 3NB _______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org Cheers, Andreas — Andreas Dilger Lustre Principal Architect Whamcloud/DDN
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
