[Info-vax] Re; Spiralog, RMS Journaling (was Re: FREESPADRIFT)

[David Froble]

Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2016-06-23 18:06, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <nkgspt$rm$2 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist 
>> <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>> This whole thread came about because some people pointed out that exact
>>> file sizes, to the byte, sometimes were wanted. And then it's been a
>>> thread of "why?". And when I give an example of why, it becomes a thread
>>> of "why?".
>>>
>>> Yes, I know VMS couldn't care less. RSX also couldn't care less. Me,
>>> writing an http server (as well as an ftp server), do care. And doing
>>> these things, which many people consider to be pretty basic tools that
>>> all systems should have, is a pain because the file system do not have
>>> this information.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are solutions. They are costly. Could there possibly be a
>>> point in adding this information, if it can be done at a low cost?
>>>
>>> You are just putting your head in the sand and saying that since it's
>>> not there, we don't need it.
>>
>> Why pay for it when you don't need it?  Pay for it when you do!
> 
> Which, for a web server, is every time a document is requested, which 
> might mean a dozen requests for a single page. And that is just one 
> example. And for a 10M document, calculating the size every time is 
> pretty costly... Reading through 10M to find the size, and then read 
> through it again, to deliver it. Color me not-excited.
> 
>     Johnny
> 

Why would you read through it twice?  With a few exceptions, read it into 
memory, then transmit it.  Something you got to do anyway.  Perhaps just 
re-ordering the task.

Too big?  Got to ask, what's wrong with doing things in segments?  Maybe not how 
the *ix world does things.  Who's to say they are always right?