Huh, that's all supposed to just work, assuming you have
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
in your gcc compilation command.

Although you'd think that would be moot in a 64 bit world.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Dave Trudgian <[email protected]> wrote:

> Brian,
>
> It was built from 4.3.1 source on Ubuntu Server 9.04 64-bit, using gcc
> 4.3.3-5ubuntu4.
>
> As mentioned, I think the problem is due to the index file... in the
> interact.pep.xml.index I have lines like:
>
> -2069230164     -2069226665     48      EIAIIPSKKLR
> EIAIIPSK134.11K134.11LRI    PI00622165      0       9.19630.19630.3 0.0000
>
> ... where the first two values are offsets in the .pep.xml for that
> peptide, which have overflowed into signed 32-bit int 2s complement negative
> values.
>
> I believe from looking at the code that when the index file exists then the
> PepXMLViewer will use it rather than doing a full expat parse of the file.
> Hence it's ending up with nonsense offsets for peptide information which are
> likely causing the errors. I'll have a look tomorrow at where the index is
> created, and what integer types are being used. I suppose an unsigned int
> can be used then that'd be good for up to 4GB, and long int would give 4GB
> on 32-bit or much more on 64-bit systems.
>
> DT
>
>
>
>
> On 31/03/2010 18:36, Brian Pratt wrote:
>
>  Do you know how pepXMLViewer.cgi was built?  It's meant to support large
> files...
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:54 AM, dctrud <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> I thought about out of memory conditions, but am running on 64-bit
>> linux, and have 32GB of RAM, plus whilst running the cgi is using only
>> a very small fraction of that.
>>
>> Looked again and the file is *just* over the 2GB boundary, looks like
>> you're right, which has pointed me to the index file, which shows the
>> integer offset values have overflowed.
>>
>> Many Thanks,
>>
>> DT
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar, 17:08, Brian Pratt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > My guess would be that the parser is trying to fail gracefully on an out
>> of
>> > memory condition - it "forgets" part of the stream then is confused when
>> it
>> > hits an unmatched closing tag.
>> >
>> > But that's just a guess.  Could also be about crossing the dread 2GB
>> file
>> > size threshold.
>> >
>> > It's almost certainly about largeness, though.
>> > Brian
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:38 AM, dctrud <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > All,
>> >
>> > > I'm having trouble with PepXMLViewer.cgi (4.3.1) on some very
>> > > large .pep.xml files. The cgi will exit with the error:
>> >
>> > > error with spreadsheet printing: XML parsing error: not well-formed
>> > > (invalid token), at xml file line 6298020, column 17
>> >
>> > > This is for an export to Excel, but similar errors will also occur
>> > > when filtering the dataset in the web interface.
>> >
>> > > I've checked that the interact.pep.xml file is well formed with a
>> > > python script that uses expat to parse it (as per the cgi), and there
>> > > are no problems. Line 6298020 is the following end tag, which isn't an
>> > > invalid token:
>> >
>> > > </modification_info>
>> >
>> > > I've also checked that none of the protein descriptions in the file
>> > > contain < > " characters which could mess up the parsing earlier. Am
>> > > now out of ideas of what could be the cause, and wondering if anyone
>> > > has seen this problem, or has any ideas?
>> >
>> > > Many Thanks,
>> >
>> > > DT
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > > "spctools-discuss" group.
>> > > To post to this group, send email to
>> [email protected].
>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > > [email protected]<spctools-discuss%[email protected]>
>> <spctools-discuss%[email protected]<spctools-discuss%[email protected]>
>> >
>> > > .
>> > > For more options, visit this group at
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "spctools-discuss" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<spctools-discuss%[email protected]>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en.
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "spctools-discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en.
>
>
> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "spctools-discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<spctools-discuss%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"spctools-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en.

Reply via email to