[Posting to both apr and subversion dev lists.]
I know that largefile support is kludgey in APR 0.9x, but
unfortunately, thousands of Subversion users are still using that
branch (and httpd 2.0.x) because of the binary compatibility issue.
Someone privately pointed out to me today
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:18 -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
In any case: I'm wondering if we should be passing APR_LARGEFILE to
all apr_file_io calls. Is it necessary? Should we expect problems
if we don't?
Passing APR_LARGEFILE does not magically change the size of apr_off_t;
it does
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:49 -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
Okay, so then there really is a risk here for very large
repositories, particularly ones using FSFS.
It doesn't matter how large the repository is, only how large the
commits to it are.
Should we start recommending that such
On May 31, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
However, we most definitely do need to seek around in FSFS rev files,
which are the most common thing to go above 2GB. APR_LARGEFILE won't
help us for that case.
Okay, so then there really is a risk here for very large
repositories,
On May 31, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
Funny, KDE is using fsfs, and I would have expected them to run
into a 2GB revision file.
Well, whattya know. Now Timothee Besset (ttimo) in IRC has just
reported the same File size limit exceeded error that we saw on
users@
On 5/31/05, Ben Collins-Sussman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
Funny, KDE is using fsfs, and I would have expected them to run
into a 2GB revision file.
Well, whattya know. Now Timothee Besset (ttimo) in IRC has just
reported the
Erik Huelsmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 5/31/05, Ben Collins-Sussman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
Funny, KDE is using fsfs, and I would have expected them to run
into a 2GB revision file.
Well, whattya know. Now
? I'd imagine that APR should hide largefile
support if at all possible. And, I suppose it would need to
be protected with some autoconf magic for those platforms
without largefile support. -- justin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:04 PM
any ideas howto workaround this?
and any plans on adding largefile support to 2.0?
If it's supported I'd like to see it (Win32 does). However, we need to
make an executive decision. Does apr
Sounds good to me.
Ryan
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
What is it folks?
APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES?
I'd like to commit the patch with a 'proper' name
Bill
___
Ryan Bloom
Question,
if we enable largefile support for unix, the apr_finfo_t-size, apr_off_t,
and so forth all become 64 bit identities?
Are we prepared to do so today? Consequences? Win32 absolutely handles
64 bit file sizes/offsets without complaint, I just want to get a handle on
how we proceed
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Question,
if we enable largefile support for unix, the apr_finfo_t-size, apr_off_t,
and so forth all become 64 bit identities?
Are we prepared to do so today? Consequences? Win32 absolutely handles
64 bit file sizes/offsets without
:42 PM
Subject: Re: LARGEFILE support?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Question,
if we enable largefile support for unix, the apr_finfo_t-size,
apr_off_t,
and so forth all become 64 bit identities?
Are we prepared to do so today? Consequences? Win32 absolutely
From: Doug MacEachern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:31 PM
any ideas howto workaround this?
and any plans on adding largefile support to 2.0?
If it's supported I'd like to see it (Win32 does). However, we need to
make an executive decision. Does apr (ignoring the httpd
any ideas howto workaround this?
and any plans on adding largefile support to 2.0?
If it's supported I'd like to see it (Win32 does). However, we need to
make an executive decision. Does apr (ignoring the httpd issue for the
moment, do we have programs faulting over arithmetic
as some of you may know, perl 5.6.0+ enables largefile support by default.
in order for mod_perl+apache to cooperate, the lfs flags must either be
stripped when mod_perl is built or apache must be built with these flags,
e.g. -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
however
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
as some of you may know, perl 5.6.0+ enables largefile support by default.
in order for mod_perl+apache to cooperate, the lfs flags must either be
stripped when mod_perl is built or apache must be built with these flags,
e.g. -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
any ideas howto workaround this?
We could simply check the CFLAGS for -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 and if it is
there, we just disable sendfile for Linux.
Actually, this is relatively easy to fix by actually trying to compile
sendfile. I'll work up a potential patch, and send it to you.
Ryan
18 matches
Mail list logo
