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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-23 20:46, David Froble wrote:
> 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?

I think you missed the point. For a web server, you *have* to give the 
size before you start sending data. Doing it in segments then obviously 
is not the answer. Nor is reordering of anything. Size comes first, data 
comes after. Do I have to repeat it again?

And blaming Unix isn't useful/meaningful either. The protocol is that 
way. Deal with it.
And yes, it can be too big to just gob into memory, not to mention that 
gobbing many megs of memory for this is a pretty poor design.

	Johnny