[Info-vax] Re; Spiralog, RMS Journaling (was Re: FREESPADRIFT)
VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG
VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG
Tue Jun 21 12:18:36 EDT 2016
In article <nkbn1q$5cn$2 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>On 2016-06-19 04:35, David Froble wrote:
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but that is a simple calculation with 1 block = 512 bytes.
>>> It does not correctly display partially filled blocks. I guess
>>> that what most here are talking about is the size up to the
>>> marker. Convering the used/allocated number of blocks is simple.
>>>
>>> Jan-Erik.
>>
>> I would suggest "what does it matter?"
>>
>> It's not like some other file is going to use the unused portion of some
>> disk block, or, as suggested, unused part of 4096 bytes ....
>
>No. But if you implement FTP, or a web server, or any number of other
>tools/programs, they are expected to report file sizes in bytes, and the
>byte count should be *accurate*. Even one byte off is not acceptable.
Why?
>And that becomes costly if your system do not keep that information, and
>you have to calculate it yourself.
$ SEARCH file.txt ""/NOOUTPUT/STATISTICS
Files searched: 1 Buffered I/O count: 5
Records searched: 255 Direct I/O count: 1
Characters searched: 11333 --. Page faults: 20
Records matched: 255 | Elapsed CPU time: 0 00:00:00.00
Lines printed: 0 | Elapsed time: 0 00:00:00.00
`---------------.
$ DUMP/HEADER/BLOCKS=COUNT=0 file.txt |
: |
: |
Highest block: 32 |
End of file block: 24 |
End of file byte: 220 |
: |
: |
File length hints |
Record count: 255 |
Data byte count: 11333 <---'
:
:
(24-1)+220 => 11996
Which is right? 11333? 11996? Neither?
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
More information about the Info-vax
mailing list