另外:

硬链接的读取性能优于符号链接(微性能) 符号链接可以被复制，版本控制，等等。换句话说，它们是一个实际的文件。另一方面，硬链接的级别略低，您会发现，与符号链接相比，提供将硬链接作为硬链接而不是普通文件处理的工具较少

在文件系统下面，文件由inode表示。(或者是多个索引节点?不确定。)

文件系统中的文件基本上是一个到inode的链接。 因此，硬链接只是创建另一个文件，该文件具有指向相同底层inode的链接。

当您删除一个文件时，它会删除到底层inode的一个链接。只有当到inode的所有链接都被删除时，inode才会被删除(或可删除/可覆盖)。

符号链接是指向文件系统中另一个名称的链接。

一旦建立了硬链接，链接就指向inode。删除、重命名或移动原始文件不会影响硬链接，因为它链接到底层inode。对inode上数据的任何更改都反映在引用该inode的所有文件中。

注意:硬链接只在同一个文件系统内有效。符号链接可以跨文件系统，因为它们只是另一个文件的名称。

当原始文件被移动时，硬链接非常有用。例如，将文件从/bin移动到/usr/bin或/usr/local/bin。到/bin中文件的任何符号链接都将被破坏，但是硬链接(直接到文件的inode的链接)不会关心。

硬链接可能占用更少的磁盘空间，因为它们只占用一个目录条目，而符号链接需要自己的inode来存储它所指向的名称。

Hard links also take less time to resolve - symlinks can point to other symlinks that are in symlinked directories. And some of these could be on NFS or other high-latency file systems, and so could result in network traffic to resolve. Hard links, being always on the same file system, are always resolved in a single look-up, and never involve network latency (if it's a hardlink on an NFS filesystem, the NFS server would do the resolution, and it would be invisible to the client system). Sometimes this is important. Not for me, but I can imagine high-performance systems where this might be important.

I also think things like mmap(2) and even open(2) use the same functionality as hardlinks to keep a file's inode active so that even if the file gets unlink(2)ed, the inode remains to allow the process continued access, and only once the process closes it does the file really go away. This allows for much safer temporary files (if you can get the open and unlink to happen atomically, which there may be a POSIX API for that I'm not remembering, then you really have a safe temporary file) where you can read/write your data without anyone being able to access it. Well, that was true before /proc gave everyone the ability to look at your file descriptors, but that's another story.

说到这里，恢复一个在进程a中打开，但在文件系统中未链接的文件需要使用硬链接来重新创建inode链接，这样当打开该文件的进程关闭或离开时，该文件不会消失。

俗话说，一幅画胜过千言万语。以下是我对它的想象:

下面是我们如何得到这张照片的:

Create a name myfile.txt in the file system that points to a new inode (which contains the metadata for the file and points to the blocks of data that contain its contents, i.e. the text "Hello, World!": $ echo 'Hello, World!' > myfile.txt Create a hard link my-hard-link to the file myfile.txt, which means "create a file that should point to the same inode that myfile.txt points to": $ ln myfile.txt my-hard-link Create a soft link my-soft-link to the file myfile.txt, which means "create a file that should point to the file myfile.txt": $ ln -s myfile.txt my-soft-link

看看如果myfile.txt被删除(或移动)会发生什么:my-hard-link仍然指向相同的内容，因此不受影响，而my-soft-link现在什么都不指向。其他答案讨论了每种方法的利与弊。

我刚刚发现了一个简单的方法来理解硬链接在一个常见的场景，软件安装。

有一天，我下载了一个软件到下载文件夹进行安装。在我做sudo make install后，一些可执行文件被cped到本地bin文件夹。这里，cp创建硬链接。我对这个软件很满意，但很快就意识到，从长远来看，下载并不是一个好地方。所以我把软件文件夹移动到源目录。好吧，我仍然可以像以前一样运行软件而不用担心任何目标链接的事情，就像在Windows中一样。这意味着硬链接可以直接找到inode和其他文件。

一些例子可能会有所帮助。

创建两个包含数据的文件:

$ printf Cat > foo
$ printf Dog > bar

创建一个硬链接和软链接(又名符号链接):

$ ln foo foo-hard
$ ln -s bar bar-soft

通过增加大小以长格式列出目录内容:

ls -lrS
lrwxr-xr-x   1 user  staff        3  3 Apr 15:25 bar-soft -> bar
-rw-r--r--   2 user  staff        4  3 Apr 15:25 foo-hard
-rw-r--r--   2 user  staff        4  3 Apr 15:25 foo
-rw-r--r--   1 user  staff        4  3 Apr 15:25 bar

这告诉我们

1st column: the file mode for the soft and hard links differ soft link: lrwxr-xr-x filetype: l = symbolic link owner permissions: rwx = readable, writable, executable group permissions: r-x = readable, not writable, executable other permissions: r-x = readable, not writable, executable hard link: -rw-r--r-- filetype: - = regular file owner permissions: rw- = readable, writable, not executable group permissions: r-- = readable, not writable, not executable other permissions: r-- = readable, not writable, not executable 2nd column: number of links is higher for the hard linked files 5th column: the size of the soft link is smaller, because it's a reference as opposed to a copy last column: the symbolic link shows the linked-to file via ->

更改foo的文件名不会影响foo-hard:

$ mv foo foo-new
$ cat foo-hard
Cat

更改foo的内容反映在foo-hard中:

$ printf Dog >> foo
$ cat foo-hard
CatDog

像foo-hard这样的硬链接指向文件的inode(内容)。

这不是像bar-soft这样的软链接的情况:

$ mv bar bar-new
$ ls bar-soft
bar-soft
$ cat bar-soft  
cat: bar-soft: No such file or directory

无法找到文件的内容，因为软链接指向已更改的名称，而不是指向内容。

同样地，如果foo被删除，foo-hard仍然保存内容;如果bar被删除，bar-soft只是一个指向不存在文件的链接。