-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:28:18 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> > Well, you could try unsparsing a file.. it's a blind shot, it makes no
> >sense, but it's worth a try (on the smallest huge file).
> >
> >cp --sparse=always big.wav test.wav
>
> That's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:54:04 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> I could not open the file with khexedit, since it complained about
> insufficient memory (I have only 256MB of RAM in this machine). But the
> theory of it actually having spaces or zeroes
Rodolfo,
On Sunday August 24, 2003 11:28, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> Is there someone out there with some coding expertise, who can maybe
> explain why "ls -l" and "ls -sh" give different results? Like this:
Not that I read the code but it isn't too hard to derive the answer from the
info page of
At 8/24/2003 22:04 -0400, you wrote:
On Sunday 24 August 2003 07:07 pm, Jason Dixon 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
At 8/24/2003 23:17 -0300, you wrote:
Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> I have no idea how to even start looking for this one
Well, you could try unsparsing a file.. it's a blind shot, it makes no
sense, but it's worth a try (on the smallest huge file).
cp --sparse=always big.wav test.wav
That's actually
On Sunday 24 August 2003 07:07 pm, Jason Dixon 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 t
Rodolfo J. Paiz
> Trying to figure out what caused this wrong listing and fix it, since
> copying the file does take the whole 1.2GB
Just got it, this is what I meant: if the files are sparse, cp
--sparse=always wouldn't take the whole 1.2 GB.
--
Herculano de Lima Einloft Neto <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I wrote:
> Well, you could try unsparsing a file.. it's a blind shot, it makes no
> sense, but it's worth a try (on the smallest huge file).
>
> cp --sparse=always big.wav test.wav
Please disconsider this - it's confuse. I didn't read all your posts well. Your
files would be
sparsed already
Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> I have no idea how to even start looking for this one
Well, you could try unsparsing a file.. it's a blind shot, it makes no
sense, but it's worth a try (on the smallest huge file).
cp --sparse=always big.wav test.wav
--
Herculano de Lima Einloft Neto <[EMAIL PROTECT
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rodolfo J. Paiz
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: /var/log/lastlog -- why is it 19 megabytes?
>
> At 8/24/2003 20:08
At 8/24/2003 20:08 -0500, you wrote:
let me further explain with a example.
Suppose you have a file that is 1024 bytes on linux and you do a ls it
will list as 2 block (2 512 byte blocks).
OK... but here the error would be at most a few KB, not an additional 1,130MB.
You copy this file to a vf
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jurvis lasalle
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 7:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: /var/log/lastlog -- why is it 19 megabytes?
>
>
> On Sunday, Aug
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rodolfo J. Paiz
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 8:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: /var/log/lastlog -- why is it 19 megabytes?
>
> At 8/24/200
At 8/24/2003 19:55 -0500, you wrote:
This maybe absolutely correct reporting. You said that windows and
linux are sharing the disk that these files are stored.
Ah, but the files are on an ext3 partition, on the Linux server, and only
shared via Samba to the Windows boxen. So, while reasonable, we
At 8/24/2003 20:56 -0400, you wrote:
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")?
Stab away, any effort welcome. I have never set those variables manually,
and doing a "set | grep -i size" right now f
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rodolfo J. Paiz
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 7:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: /var/log/lastlog -- why is it 19 megabytes?
>
> At 8/24/200
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
At 8/25/2003 01:35 +0200, you wrote:
Okay. What else can you report about the integrity of the WAV files?
When you load them into a somewhat capable audio player, is the
displayed playtime correct? In that case, the internal file size in
the WAV header would be correct. What do you see at the end o
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 t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:56:52 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz 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
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 ori
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:03:43 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> Will "sparsing" or "unsparsing" the file (whichever is the one that fixes
> the problem) eliminate those blank spaces? I have 40M files that (after
> being copied to a second hard drive) s
At 8/22/2003 21:39 -0300, you wrote:
Robert C. Paulsen Jr. wrote:
> Perhaps you saved the file from within vi. That might "unsparse" the
> file.
Will "sparsing" or "unsparsing" the file (whichever is the one that fixes
the problem) eliminate those blank spaces? I have 40M files that (after
being
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:39:40PM -0300, Herculano de Lima Einloft Neto wrote:
> Robert C. Paulsen Jr. wrote:
> > Perhaps you saved the file from within vi. That might "unsparse" the
> > file.
>
>Yes.. but perhaps I didn't. :)
>
> > Read up on the --sparse option of cp ("man cp"). It looks l
Robert C. Paulsen Jr. wrote:
> Perhaps you saved the file from within vi. That might "unsparse" the
> file.
Yes.. but perhaps I didn't. :)
> Read up on the --sparse option of cp ("man cp"). It looks like the
> following will work: (warning! I have not tried this!)
>
> cd /var/log
>
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:37:57PM -0300, Herculano de Lima Einloft Neto wrote:
> Ronald W. Heiby wrote:
> > If, when you copy a sparse file, you do not take precautions to have
> > the copy also be sparse, the copy gets "filled in" and has a bunch of
> > bytes of 0x00 actually allocated on disk. L
Ronald W. Heiby wrote:
> If, when you copy a sparse file, you do not take precautions to have
> the copy also be sparse, the copy gets "filled in" and has a bunch of
> bytes of 0x00 actually allocated on disk. Looks like that happened
> here.
>
> Ron.
Well, I'm quite sure I never copied it a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 21, 2003, 9:39:30 PM, Herculano wrote:
>OK.. I've seen this subject on lots of threads so I'll ask.. can you
> explain this?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs]$ du -h /var/log/lastlog
> 19M /var/log/lastlog
If, when you copy a spar
OK.. I've seen this subject on lots of threads so I'll ask.. can you explain this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] logs]$ du -h /var/log/lastlog
19M /var/log/lastlog
Thanks in advance
--
Herculano de Lima Einloft Neto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:02:02 + (UTC), Mark Neidorff wrote:
> Since I don't know, I'll askwhat are sparse blocks and
Think of sparse blocks (aka "sparse files") as files with holes. Empty
[not yet used] parts of a file are not written to disk
Since I don't know, I'll askwhat are sparse blocks and why does
`ls -l` show 19Mb and du show 56k?
Mark
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:57:18 -0500, Robert C. Paulsen Jr. wrote:
>
> > Can anyone ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:57:18 -0500, Robert C. Paulsen Jr. wrote:
> Can anyone explain why my /var/log/lastlog is 19 megabytes?
It isn't. It just contains sparse blocks. See:
du -h /var/log/lastlog
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuP
33 matches
Mail list logo
