On 29/08/2007, Chris Kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Lowe wrote:
> > Boyd Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Chris Kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>>None of {ZFS,QFS,UFS} even bother to grab a lock in their statvfs
> >>>handlers, so as Boyd Adamson correctly pointed out, all of the statvfs
> >>>values are rumors at best anyway.
> >>
> >>Actually, that wasn't me. I pointed out that the free space at this
> >>moment is no guide as to the free space when we actually come to write
> >>the files.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And that surely the right thing to do here is to have the application
> > either deal with EOVERFLOW sanely, or use the largefile environment.
>
> No doubt, that's definitely the best solution in general.
>
> The request for this RFE was to see if we could do something reasonable
> for apps that can't be fixed for whatever reason (no maintainer, no
> source code, etc.). That's what I'm trying to explore. :-)
This strikes me as especially important for Solaris given how old some
applications are that can run on it. Of course, zfs filesystems are so
easy and cheap to create, I suppose there is an easy workaround
available when it really matters.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. " --Donald Knuth
_______________________________________________
ufs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
