On Mon, May 2 at 15:30, Brandon High wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama
wrote:
that the application would have done the seek+write combination, since
on NTFS (which doesn't support sparse) these would have been real
1.5GB files, and there would be hundreds or thousands of th
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama
wrote:
> that the application would have done the seek+write combination, since
> on NTFS (which doesn't support sparse) these would have been real
> 1.5GB files, and there would be hundreds or thousands of them in
> normal usage.
NTFS supports spars
Then again, Windows apps may be doing seek+write to pre-allocate storage.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Yea, kept googling and it makes sense. I guess I am simply surprised
that the application would have done the seek+write combination, since
on NTFS (which doesn't support sparse) these would have been real
1.5GB files, and there would be hundreds or thou
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama
wrote:
> Yea, kept googling and it makes sense. I guess I am simply surprised
> that the application would have done the seek+write combination, since
> on NTFS (which doesn't support sparse) these would have been real
> 1.5GB files, and there would
On Mon, May 2 at 20:50, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 05/ 2/11 08:41 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Mon, May 2 at 14:01, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following oddity.
I have a directory of files (named file.d
On 05/02/11 14:02, Nico Williams wrote:
Also, sparseness need not be apparent to applications. Until recent
improvements to lseek(2) to expose hole/non-hole offsets, the only way
to know about sparseness was to notice that a file's reported size is
more than the file's reported filesystem blocks
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
These are probably just sparse files. Nothing to be alarmed about.
They were created via CIFS. I thought sparse files were an iSCSI concept,
no?
Sparse files are a traditional Unix filesystem feature. Many/most
database files are sparse. All tha
Also, sparseness need not be apparent to applications. Until recent
improvements to lseek(2) to expose hole/non-hole offsets, the only way
to know about sparseness was to notice that a file's reported size is
more than the file's reported filesystem blocks times the block size.
Sparse files in Uni
>On Mon, May 2 at 14:01, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>>On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following oddity.
>>>I have a directory of files (named file.dat for this example) that all
>>>appear as ~1.5GB when using 'ls -l', but that (
On 05/ 2/11 08:41 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Mon, May 2 at 14:01, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following oddity.
I have a directory of files (named file.dat for this example) that all
appear as ~1.5GB wh
On Mon, May 2 at 14:01, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following oddity.
I have a directory of files (named file.dat for this example) that all
appear as ~1.5GB when using 'ls -l', but that (correctly) appe
> > Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following
> > oddity.
> > I have a directory of files (named file.dat for this example) that
> > all
> > appear as ~1.5GB when using 'ls -l', but that (correctly) appear as
> > ~250KB
> > files when using 'ls -s' or du commands:
>
> These are
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following oddity.
I have a directory of files (named file.dat for this example) that all
appear as ~1.5GB when using 'ls -l', but that (correctly) appear as ~250KB
files when using 'ls -s' or du comma
Hi. While doing a scan of disk usage, I noticed the following oddity.
I have a directory of files (named file.dat for this example) that all
appear as ~1.5GB when using 'ls -l', but that (correctly) appear as ~250KB
files when using 'ls -s' or du commands:
edmudama$ ls -l file.dat
-rwxrwx--
15 matches
Mail list logo
