On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 18:56, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 8/23/2003 10:13 +0200, you wrote: > >The problem with your WAV files is not that they contain sparse > >blocks. If they did, they would not sound good, because you would hear > >every blank block. And since they are listed as 20 times the original > >size, you would hear a lot of "silence", and each of them would play > >for several hours. ;) But as you've mentioned, two arbitrary "1GB > >songs" still sound good. > > > >Just out of curiousity, what do you get when you gzip such a huge > >file, transfer it to another machine and gunzip it? > > Sorry to take so long to respond. > > Didn't have another Linux machine at hand, so I gzipped it (took all of six > seconds) and transferred the compressed file (down from 1.18GB to an > expected 53MB) to another drive. Gunzipping the file resulted again in a > 1.18GB file. > > Color me baffled.
Sorry, I'm joining this thread way after the fact. The only thing I'll mention is that I *have* seen certain applications zero out a very large filesize in preparation for filling up that space with a series of chunks. Bit-torrent is the *perfect* example of that. Say you start to download a 500M ISO image. It breaks it into chunks so it can perform parallel downloads from multiple clients. Even though the total download at any one time may only be a fraction of that size, the file is reserved at its maximum size. I don't know how it does it, but it does. :) Does this sound like a possibility? -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
