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
9 matches
Mail list logo
