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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-23 20:50, David Froble wrote:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <nkh313$ekh$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist
>> <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>> On 2016-06-23 18:06, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> In article <nkgspt$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.
>>
>> Again, that's not a VMS problem; it's your/the protocol.  Perhaps,
>> instead
>> of about it complaining here, you should complain to the IETF. ;)
>
> Agreed.
>
>> VMS moved files over the network without having to know the precise
>> number
>> of bytes it has to move before doing so, so there could and there
>> should and there are alternative ways this can be accomplished without
>> knowing a
>> count beforehand.
>
> What about a protocol that allows data to be sent without a byte count
> up front, terminated by some termination flag, and then the byte count
> so the receiver can check for a good transmission?  Should work.

There are plenty of ways to design protocols.
Doing the size after the file will not allow you to have any 
understanding of how much space should be reserved for the file, nor get 
any idea of how far you are from completion.
But that should not stop you.

	Johnny