On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 20:31 America/New_York, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
At 8/24/2003 19:07 -0400, you wrote: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?
Not at all... these are standard WAV files, originally ripped from the (original, purchased) music CD. They average 45-50MB, but when I moved them to a second hard drive some of them started getting reported by "ls -l" as being roughly 20 times larger (900MB to 1.2GB). Oddly, "ls -sh" reports their sizes correctly, as does "du -h".
Trying to figure out what caused this wrong listing and fix it, since copying the file does take the whole 1.2GB. Also, I share this folder with Windows which reports total usage as 1.6TB instead of the actual 63GB (25x).
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Here's a stab in the dark- do you have the SIZE or BLOCKSIZE environment variable set (esp. when the wav files were originally "magnified")?
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
