I attempted to create a 4gb sparce file with dd. It failed.
I created one that was 2.1gb in size which worked. Then I appeneded more
junk to the end of the file making it over 2.2gb.
doing an ls -l shows:
ls: x: Value too large for defined data type
NOTE: this worked in 2.4.0-test6 and I believe it stopped working around
test8, but I'm not sure. May have been around test7.
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Wakko Warner wrote:
> I attempted to create a 4gb sparce file with dd. It failed.
> I created one that was 2.1gb in size which worked. Then I appeneded more
> junk to the end of the file making it over 2.2gb.
>
> doing an ls -l shows:
> ls: x: Value too large for defined data type
>
> NOTE: this worked in 2.4.0-test6 and I believe it stopped working around
> test8, but I'm not sure. May have been around test7.
Previous kernels allowed up to 4gb to be returned by the old stat.
Upgrade your glibc and fileutils -- most recent distributions (Red Hat,
SuSE, ...) are LFS ready, and the only reports I've seen about this
concerned Slackware.
-ben
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 09:56:06PM -0400, Wakko Warner wrote:
> I attempted to create a 4gb sparce file with dd. It failed.
> I created one that was 2.1gb in size which worked. Then I appeneded more
> junk to the end of the file making it over 2.2gb.
>
> doing an ls -l shows:
> ls: x: Value too large for defined data type
>
> NOTE: this worked in 2.4.0-test6 and I believe it stopped working around
> test8, but I'm not sure. May have been around test7.
Your userspace tools are not using LFS compliant
open(O_LARGEFILE), and stat64() methods.
EXT2 got corrected to do LFS limited open() handling
at correct limit (2G-1) at around that time.
There still lurks some mis-compliance issues at
read() and write() which are still allowed to
go over 2G-1 marker without the fd having
O_LARGEFILE flag.
/Matti Aarnio
> > I attempted to create a 4gb sparce file with dd. It failed.
> > I created one that was 2.1gb in size which worked. Then I appeneded more
> > junk to the end of the file making it over 2.2gb.
> >
> > doing an ls -l shows:
> > ls: x: Value too large for defined data type
> >
> > NOTE: this worked in 2.4.0-test6 and I believe it stopped working around
> > test8, but I'm not sure. May have been around test7.
>
> Previous kernels allowed up to 4gb to be returned by the old stat.
> Upgrade your glibc and fileutils -- most recent distributions (Red Hat,
> SuSE, ...) are LFS ready, and the only reports I've seen about this
> concerned Slackware.
I did upgrade that and it didn't help anything.
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
On 26 Oct 00 at 23:15, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > doing an ls -l shows:
> > ls: x: Value too large for defined data type
> >
> > NOTE: this worked in 2.4.0-test6 and I believe it stopped working around
> > test8, but I'm not sure. May have been around test7.
>
> Previous kernels allowed up to 4gb to be returned by the old stat.
> Upgrade your glibc and fileutils -- most recent distributions (Red Hat,
> SuSE, ...) are LFS ready, and the only reports I've seen about this
> concerned Slackware.
And Debian :-( It is hard to get rid of such file - GNU 'rm' complains
too, as it tries to stat that file first :-( Fortunately
echo -n > x; rm x
works. I filled bugreport some time ago (when 2.1.94 come to woody), but
it was closed, as there are no 2.4.x headers in Debian, so it is not
possible to recompile glibc against them... Recompiling glibc is enough
for woody, BTW.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Wakko Warner wrote:
> I did upgrade that and it didn't help anything.
Was your glibc compiled against 2.4 kernel headers?
-ben
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:19:54PM -0400, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > That I do not know. it's v 2.1.99 that came with debian in the past
> > week or so
>
> Then it's compiled against the v2.2 kernel headers.
That explains why LFS isn't working then. I strongly suggest that the
Debian glibc maintainers compile against 2.4 kernel headers or patch their
2.2 kernel headers to include the LFS stubs.
-ben
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:19:54PM -0400, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > > I did upgrade that and it didn't help anything.
> >
> > Was your glibc compiled against 2.4 kernel headers?
>
> That I do not know. it's v 2.1.99 that came with debian in the past
> week or so
Then it's compiled against the v2.2 kernel headers.
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <[email protected]> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
> > I did upgrade that and it didn't help anything.
>
> Was your glibc compiled against 2.4 kernel headers?
That I do not know. it's v 2.1.99 that came with debian in the past week
or so
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals