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

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <nkhcik$1o0$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>On 2016-06-23 20:46, David Froble wrote:
>> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2016-06-23 18:06, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> In article <nkgspt$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.

OK.  So your web server sits on VMS.  If the file is NOT RFM=STM, call the
callable CONV$ert routine and convert it to RFM=STM.  There, done once and
then no more!  Now, you can have your precious byte-counted file size from
<end_of_file_block-1>*512 + <end_of_file_byte>.  Both values easily gotten
and the math is simple enough that even Bernie *should* be able do it.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.