"Richard L. Hamilton" <rlha...@smart.net> wrote: >> I did find the earlier discussion on the subject (someone e-mailed me that >> there had been >> such). It seemed to conclude that some apps are statically linked with old >> scandir() code >> that (incorrectly) assumed that the number of directory entries could be >> estimated as >> st_size/24; and worse, that some such apps might be seeing the small st_size >> that zfs >> offers via NFS, so they might not even be something that could be fixed on >> Solaris at all. >> But I didn't see anything in the discussion that suggested that this was >> going to be changed. >> Nor did I see a compelling argument for leaving it the way it is, either. >> In the face of >> "undefined", all arguments end up as pragmatism rather than principle, IMO. > Joerg Schilling wrote: > This is a problem I had to fix for some customers in 1992 when people started > to use NFS > servers based on the Novell OS. > Jörg >
Oh bother, I should have noticed this back in 1999/2001 (;-)) Joking aside, we were looking at the Solaris ABI (application Binary interface) and working on ensuring binary stability. The size of a directory entry was supposed to be undefined and in principle *variable*, but Novell et all seem to have assumed that the size they used was guaranteed to be the same for all time. And no machine needs more than 640 KB of memory, either... Ah well, at least the ZFS folks found it for us, so I can add it to my database of porting problems. What OSs did you folks find it on? --dave (an external consultant, these days) c-b -- David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest dav...@sun.com | -- Mark Twain cell: (647) 833-9377, bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191# _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
