Christian Jaeger wrote:
>
> Just to the record: I've written a small program too, and it reports
> correct sizes for normal disk devices under both linux 2.2 and 2.4,
> as long as the partition sizes don't exceed the 2GB limit (I don't
> have large file support, since I use debian potato with just the
> necessary packages upraded for running 2.4). I've NOT tried with
> *unbuffered raw* partitions, however (linux 2.4 supports both
> partition access with and without buffering), I don't know yet how to
> setup these.
database sql query table
This is getting interesting!
I compiled your program on my home machine (Redhat 6.2) and it gave me
the same results that you reported. However, I tried it on the machine
at work that I was experimenting with yesterday, and it returned 0 for
each partition. Accordingly, I copied my own program to the home
machine, and tried that: it reported the correct size for the
partitions.
The difference? The home machine is running kernel 2.4.3, the machine at
work is running 2.2.16. Looks like lseek (and presumably the underlying
structures and code) must have been substantially changed.
Translated into real terms, this probably means that InnoDB raw disks
are much more likely to work under Redhat 7.1+ than Redhat 6.2 (I will
verify this as a matter of urgency and report back.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
