NTFS: symlink vs junction

[SunnyD]

Alright, I know there's a few Microsoft folks around here. I wanna know what the difference is between a symlink and a junction on NTFS is, and why one would use one over the other.

To me the both appear to be essentially the same thing, except that symlinks are a good deal more flexible than junction points are. I'm currently using a few symlinks (mklink /d) on my machine to manage a few "larger" entities that I don't want clogging up my boot SSD, and everything seems to work okay. I'm just wondering why they added the junction capability (mklink /j) if symlinks work just fine.

 

[sm625]

junction are folder only, whereas symlinks can do files and folders.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I'm just wondering why they added the junction capability (mklink /j) if symlinks work just fine.

Symlinks were added to NTFS starting with Vista. Junctions have been around since 2000.

I think one could consider junctions as obsolete starting with Vista. I'm not sure that XP and 2000 understand symlinks to files, across file systems and protocols, etc... So junction functionality is maintained if you're in a mixed environment.

 

[SunnyD]

Symlinks were added to NTFS starting with Vista. Junctions have been around since 2000.

I think one could consider junctions as obsolete starting with Vista. I'm not sure that XP and 2000 understand symlinks to files, across file systems and protocols, etc... So junction functionality is maintained if you're in a mixed environment.

Huh... okay. I kind of though after reading some MS documentation it was sort of the other way around. Apparently I read it backwards. Thanks!

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I had major issues when trying to symlink Steam GCFs to my SSD - would get hitches like crazy. The only way I could get it working properly was to junction the entire folder.