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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-30 19:00, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <nl3ffj$ibt$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:

>> [...]
>>
>> I'm not even sure what you are trying to say or prove anymore.
>>
>> Your LOGIN.CMD have 48 allocated blocks. That's the size your file take
>> up on the disk. You might fight and deny it all you want. Won't change a
>> thing. (And counting that in bytes is 24576 bytes. No more, and no less.)
>>
>> Furthermore, the number of byte actually in that file is something you
>> cannot tell me without reading through the file. And with that "number
>> of bytes", I am referring to the number of bytes you would read, if you
>> were to do sequential $GET on the file until you get an EOF error, and
>> you sum together the lengths of all the records $GET gave back to you.
>
> Where did I read through the file?  OK.  I did a SEARCH to show you what the
> XAB$_FILE_LENGTH_HINT would give you without reading the file.

Aha. Ok. I'll apologize. You did not read through the file for this. 
Yes, this information actually exists, and in exactly the form that I 
suggested a number of posts ago, which you dismissed as totally stupid 
that you did not think VMS should do.

Now, unfortunately, this information is only managed on ODS-5, so you 
loose if you have ODS-2 (or ODS-1).
But anyway, that means that for the future, one would hope that a 
stat-like system call for VMS would actually base the returned value on 
what is recorded in this field instead, when available.

Now, does that make you happy? All your ramblings about hos this is 
stupid, not needed, and your attempts at calculating this information 
through EOF pointers, and all that are still nonsense, but had you just 
from the start said "hey, what you suggest has actually already been 
implemented, and this is the field name for it", then none of this long 
and stupid discussion would have been needed.

>> Which is what I've said all along, and which you have also agreed is the
>> case.
>
> I hve NOT agreed.  Read the post to which you have just replied to and have
> elided all the proof.

You want me to quote your post where you agreed that looking at eof and 
ffby will not actually tell you the size? The whole history of this 
thread is still available for all to read.

The information you posted now was a completely new piece of information 
that I did not know, and which you never mentioned before either.
Instead you've been arguing against me all the way when I asked for 
exactly what it turns out have already been implemented.

	Johnny