Boanne wrote (I patched the two mails together): >I just had a realization - I think Bernie's really onto something >here: Hmm... my modesty tells me I should tell you that it was a known problem. But I guess not everyone knew about it (or perhaps it was infact only I who did know about it? In that case I'm really ashamed), and I should perhaps have anticipated that and offered this explanation directly when you brought the problem up. >YES, I have used Arachne both online and off to look at big >directories, most often to view Arachne's cache itself, which >can get pretty big, especially if loading images. While on that subject can you use "view cache index" or whatever it's called? The strange thing here is that I can get compile the source code and get a working binary out of it (tried all the released code - none worked). Any ideas what so ever are welcome. Binary versions from Michael does seem to work for me. >The biggest directory I have on my machine is a directory of >fonts for NeoPaint that contains 529 files. I just fired up >Arachne on the RAM disk (off line) and looked at that directory. >Then I ran CHKDSK and sure enough there were 4 lost clusters. Hmm... and the array (explanation at the bottom of the mail) border is ? Sorry, couldn't find where the stupid error is. Could you perhaps examine file0000.chk ? Does it end in "Ugh! Unbeliveable big directory" or something like that (several hundreds after one another)? >So now the only other thing to do see if others can reproduce >this on their machines. I we've found the cause of this problem. > >When I began having this problem not only had I recently >installed 1.5b2 - but I had switched from digest versions of the >Arachne list and the SurvPC list to regular versions so that I >could use a mail filter. I was dealing with a lot more individual >messages than I ever had before. I think the most I had at one >time was 212 messages, which are individual files as you know. >Perhaps this explains the lost clusters and chains containing >references to inbox.dgi and insight.exe? Perhaps in some >situations Arachne just doesn't handle large directories very >well, no matter what kind of files they are? I'm also wondering >if the directory doesn't have to be all that large for Arachne to >have trouble, at least in certain situations... Yes InSight probably has some limitation as well. BTW: inbox.dgi is a result of insight just so you know for future refrence. But I now nothing about InSights code (and searching through 25 or so files for the bug isn't something I think I'll do in the near future). Array = a list with a fixed length, ex. one that is 1024 long can then store 1024 items (of some sort, ex. files) 1024 is infact the border set in wwwman.exe for files/directories but I have seen problems arise earlier than this. I have however no idea why (finding that bug can take some time, but I got a "hunch" on where it is). "Use the Source Luke!" ;) However it seems like some 100 files/dirs or so is the border - sometimes. But what happens for the rest of you? I later tested and was able to show a directory which consist of 821 files/directories. However after closing Arachne I lost 48 MB (!) of RAM. And redoing it didn't make the same strange behavior repeat itself (I cleared the cache in between). Showing a directory with 1421 files/directories however didn't work it just crashed everything. My own (something like 1.5b2.3 or so) version of wwwman.exe however managed to show the first 1024 (I'm guessing here - but it was rather many). However I did notice two new bugs I had entered then instead (but trading this bigger bug for two smaller is a fair price IMO) I'll start lookikng ASAP (one of them I know what the code error is, the other actually makes the big one dissapear so I'll have to think about how to best fix that so none of them show up). But aren't dirs with more than 1024 items whery rare? (I have only one, soon two). I can just rise the border to 2048 or so since that would use up aanother 24K or so of memmory and often be empty. I guess a "linked list" is the best - but that gives other complications (I might as well rewrite wwwman from scratch since that's probably easier for me if I descied to go that way). BTW: There's no need to send mails espacially to me, it just confuses me since I think they are personal mails directed to me and I need to copy and change on some places to get it readable for the list. //Bernie To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
