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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-27 22:02, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <nkrefd$ems$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>> An alternative solution, which I think would actually be even more
>> useful, would be to keep track of just the number of bytes actually
>> written. So the implied CRLF per record would be ignored.
>> However, in addition to counting the bytes in each $PUT, you also have a
>> counter for the number of records in the file.
>> If someone then wants the size, assuming you add a CRLF for each record
>> (if say, you have implied CRLF as an attribute on the file), then you
>> take the number of actual bytes written, and you add 2*<number of
>> records> to this.
>> Easy, more generic, and if someone would like to know the number of
>> records for some other use, then that information would also be available.
>> Pretty cheap, and giving you more things you can do based on the metadata.
>>
>> Now, would this really be that bad?
>
> That *would* give you a more accurate figure for *your* purposes.  Of course,
> you may also have to include $DELETE and $UPDATE (depending upon organization
> of the file(s)) to be accurate.

Certainly. I could also argue that anyone else who actually is asking 
for the file size in bytes are probably asking for this same 
information. But if that is incorrect I'm very interested in hearing 
what they actually are looking for.

As we stated elsewhere, this is only really meaningful for sequential 
files, so $DELETE and $UPDATE is not really relevant. But I could try 
and work out if such a number could be used in a meaningful way on such 
files as well.

	Johnny