Christopher Faylor wrote:
I remade the executables in an old version of inetutils.
The numbers below show that only the larger ones are sparse
(so the relative overhead is small) and that stripping them
removes sparseness.
This is exactly the kind of data I was looking for. It seems to me that
Chris,
At 06:53 2003-06-06, Christopher Faylor wrote:
...
Nevermind. I was testing in a directory where I'd set the compression bit on.
So much for my trustworthiness...
"Never ascribe to malice something that can be explained by absent-mindedness."
It's one of those Occam's razor things.
I s
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:29:28AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> I did the same here and I've added the block count which shows how much
>>> blocks has been wasted by being a sparse file:
>>>
>>> 188 -rw
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 03:48:29PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>There has been very little actual data provided here
>
>Here is some data, using the program from
>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-06/msg00321.html
THANK YOU.
Gold star for Pierre.
>I remade the exec
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 07:29:51PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I assumed you would trust someone telling you whether the read-only
>> attribute of a file was set, without needing to see further evidence?
>> To me, this is an equivalent situation.
>
> Nope. I wouldn't.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:29:28AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> I did the same here and I've added the block count which shows how much
>> blocks has been wasted by being a sparse file:
>>
>> 188 -rwxr-xr-x1 corinna root 191765 Jun 6 09:55 ./ftp/ftp.exe
>> Spar
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> There has been very little actual data provided here
Here is some data, using the program from
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-06/msg00321.html
I remade the executables in an old version of inetutils.
The numbers below show that only the larger ones are sparse
(so
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 12:41:18PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>2) In all other details (including restricted characters in filenames),
> Cygwin uses the underlying filesystem's conventions. If we go out of
> our way to be compatible with Linux in this aspect, why not also
> support "aux
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Igor Pechtchanski
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:41 PM
>support "aux" as the filename, or support '\' in filenames? The
It isn't just "AUX"...
$ echo >AUX.info TEST
bash: AUX.info: No such file or directory
$ echo >LPT TES
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 07:29:51PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>I threw together a horrible C program to ask Window
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
sparse. .exe and .dll files made wit
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:04:08AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>Chris,
>
>At 10:44 2003-06-05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
>>>But nevertheless send me an email in case you find out more about
>>>since when typical unix/linux FSs sup
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Gary R. Van Sickle
> Neil Young sez:
> "KEEP ON ROCKIN' IN THE CYGWIN!
> NER NERNER NERR NER NER, NER NER NER NER NER!!!"
The word 'NER', in Swedish, is the same as the English 'DOWN'...
though NOT pronounced the way an englishman
Chris,
At 10:44 2003-06-05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
>But nevertheless send me an email in case you find out more about
>since when typical unix/linux FSs support holes inside files !
Traditional UNIX has done this for at least 10 ye
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
But nevertheless send me an email in case you find out more about
since when typical unix/linux FSs support holes inside files !
Traditional UNIX has done this for at least 10 years.
And, since I'm suffici
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
>But nevertheless send me an email in case you find out more about
>since when typical unix/linux FSs support holes inside files !
Traditional UNIX has done this for at least 10 years.
And, since I'm sufficiently trustworthy, I don't
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
>>> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't
>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
>> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't
posted
>> the test program, because it is too messy.
>> [...]
>> I
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't posted
> the test program, because it is too messy.
#include
#include
main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
D
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't posted
> the test program, because it is too messy.
> [...]
> I give proof that dll/exe files
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:48:39AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> Wait, no, *100%* of Cygwin users on NTFS are negatively
> > ^^
> >
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:48:39AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Wait, no, *100%* of Cygwin users on NTFS are negatively
>^^
>??
>
> I'm also on NTFS and I
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
> or more beyond EOF") now seems to be a good way to emulate *modern*
> unix FS capabilities, which are different from "unix sparse files",
What is the meaning of that argument? What is different? Evidence,
not claim, please.
> So
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:48:39AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> Wait, no, *100%* of Cygwin users on NTFS are negatively
^^
??
I'm also on NTFS and I don't suffer, especially after th
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> > Of Corinna Vinschen
>
> > That's perfectly fine but these are not the criteria typically linked
> > to "progress". Remember, without people wanting some sort of progress
"Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
> The next Cygwin version will produce sparse files only if the application
> decides to write 64K or more beyond EOF.
I have to admit that this is IMHO a significant technical improvement,
probably removing 9x% of cygwin_sparse' potential technica
> "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:26:50PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > >$ uname -svr
> > >CYGWIN_NT-5.1 1.5.0(0.86/3/2) 2003-06-02 00:41
> > >
> > >The new sparse file heuristic is being triggered by the way binutils writes
> > >.exe and .dll f
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Corinna Vinschen
> That's perfectly fine but these are not the criteria typically linked
> to "progress". Remember, without people wanting some sort of progress
> we'd still have no TVs. Without TV, no commercial, no soap opera...
>
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>>Does it work with ext2- or ext3-driven volume, or even a more traditional
> >>>unix FS ?
> >>
> >>*More* traditional than ext[23]? Why do you want to compare an *old*
> >>FS with a *new* FS as NTFS is? That's like comparing a Ford Model A
> >>with a modern Ford Ta
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 05:33:46PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
>"Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:26:50PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> >$ uname -svr
>> >CYGWIN_NT-5.1 1.5.0(0.86/3/2) 2003-06-02 00:41
>> >
>> >The new sparse file heuristic is being
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I did the same here and I've added the block count which shows how much
> blocks has been wasted by being a sparse file:
>
> 188 -rwxr-xr-x1 corinna root 191765 Jun 6 09:55 ./ftp/ftp.exe
> Sparse bit 200
> 497 -rwxr-xr-x1 corinna root 508186 Jun 6
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Larry Hall wrote:
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>>Does it work with ext2- or ext3-driven volume, or even a more traditional
> >>>unix FS ?
> >>
> >>*More* traditional than ext[23]? Why do you want to compare an *old*
> >>FS with a *new* FS as NTFS is? Th
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 03:48:29PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > There has been very little actual data provided here
>
> Here is some data, using the program from
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-06/msg00321.html
>
> I remade the executables in an old ver
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Does it work with ext2- or ext3-driven volume, or even a more traditional
unix FS ?
*More* traditional than ext[23]? Why do you want to compare an *old*
FS with a *new* FS as NTFS is? That's like comparing a Ford Model A
with a modern Ford Taurus. What is that good for?
> > Does it work with ext2- or ext3-driven volume, or even a more traditional
> > unix FS ?
>
> *More* traditional than ext[23]? Why do you want to compare an *old*
> FS with a *new* FS as NTFS is? That's like comparing a Ford Model A
> with a modern Ford Taurus. What is that good for?
gcc stil
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
> "Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
> > $ ./sp 2000
> > Creating file of size 2008K
> > st_size :2056192
> > st_blocks: 24
> > $ ls -sl sparse.test
> > 12 -rw-r--r--1 corinna users 2056192 Jun 5 13
"Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
>
> But that's a security problem, in contrast of not having allocated
> blocks at all for that hole. Cygwin has special code which does exactly
> that, writing 0 into all blocks in the hole on 9x/Me. Funny, but in
> 9x/Me this is a bug. The SetFi
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 05:33:46PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
>> Now it has been proven that each cygwin installation manipulating 1000s
of
>> files only suffers from this "feature"; not to mention that it breaks
>> winfile.exe :-(((.
>
> The next Cygwin version will pro
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 05:33:46PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
> Now it has been proven that each cygwin installation manipulating 1000s of
> files only suffers from this "feature"; not to mention that it breaks
> winfile.exe :-(((.
The next Cygwin version will produce sparse files only if the ap
"Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
>
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:26:50PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >$ uname -svr
> >CYGWIN_NT-5.1 1.5.0(0.86/3/2) 2003-06-02 00:41
> >
> >The new sparse file heuristic is being triggered by the way binutils writes
> >.exe and .dll files.
> >
> >I'm
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:26:50PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>$ uname -svr
>CYGWIN_NT-5.1 1.5.0(0.86/3/2) 2003-06-02 00:41
>
>The new sparse file heuristic is being triggered by the way binutils writes
>.exe and .dll files.
>
>I'm unsure this could be worked around. Any ideas?
Since you are the pr
41 matches
Mail list logo
