Understood.. I was not trying to resolve all the LARGEFILE problems here - rather, just the open() related issue.
While stress testing Apache, I realized that the log files grow at a enourmous rate - which forced me to use the O_LARGEFILE option. Note that not many people has the need to send a file of 2G over the net. BUT, log files can definitely grow larger than 2G - accepted they'll end up with log rotation etc., to overcome the problem, but the problem still remains. -Madhu >-----Original Message----- >From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 5:37 PM >To: MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1); '[email protected]' >Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for opening large files > > >--On Monday, February 10, 2003 8:26 PM -0500 "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN >(HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I was wondering if this makes sense (I'm not aware if it was >> already discussed earlier) > >Please read APR's STATUS under the entry for "Deal with largefiles >properly on those platforms that support it." > >In short, your patch wouldn't be enough by itself. I believe if the >platform has largefile support (as detected by that m4 macro in the >STATUS file), APR should always use largefiles. I believe that is >something that the portability layer should hide from the >applications where possible. -- justin >
