Michael Stone wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:41:08PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote:
> > Running "apt-get dist-upgrade"? Would that realy change/benefit much if
> > there's only one application (the database engine) that needs lsf
> > support? Since it's a server that preferably should be up
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 05:23:02PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In his case it is find, which is listing the large files in the DB Spool. He
> can eighter exclude the parent dir, or upgrade at least fileutils.
or findutils even. :)
--
Mike Stone
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:53:13PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > The reason I ask is that some program seems to have problem with
> > directories containing large files (cron report bellow), but I really
> > don't see why.
>
> The getdents syscall encountering data it can't represent in this
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:25:58PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Provided you compile with -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
And provided that the source code *always* uses off_t properly, and
never tries to go from off_t to int. There's a *lot* of bad code out
there, and it can
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:41:08PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote:
> Running "apt-get dist-upgrade"? Would that realy change/benefit much if
> there's only one application (the database engine) that needs lsf
> support? Since it's a server that preferably should be up 24/7 I want
> to stick to the mo
Michael Stone wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote:
> > I'm still some things that confuses me when putting lsf support on a
> > potato system. A accept that you have to (re)compile your program
> > against the new libc in order to use files larger than 2GB. B
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Previously Emil Pedersen wrote:
>> If program want to use lsf, do they need to use other syscall names
>> (e.g. fseek64() instead of fseek(), ...)? I assume that's the case and
>> necessary for compatibility.
>
>No, glib
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote:
> I'm still some things that confuses me when putting lsf support on a
> potato system. A accept that you have to (re)compile your program
> against the new libc in order to use files larger than 2GB. But..
Trying to add lfs to potat
Previously Emil Pedersen wrote:
> If program want to use lsf, do they need to use other syscall names
> (e.g. fseek64() instead of fseek(), ...)? I assume that's the case and
> necessary for compatibility.
No, glibc does that for you.
> If the program don't use large files they should work, with
Hello again, all helpful people :-)
I'm still some things that confuses me when putting lsf support on a
potato system. A accept that you have to (re)compile your program
against the new libc in order to use files larger than 2GB. But..
If program want to use lsf, do they need to use other sys
10 matches
Mail list logo
