| To: | XFS mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: using lseek() on large files |
| From: | James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:21:04 -0600 (MDT) |
| In-reply-to: | <20030408055256.A943836@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.50.0304071343430.30028-100000@universe.chowhouse.com> <20030408055256.A943836@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 01:46:43PM -0600, James Rich wrote: > > bits. If it is correct that XFS supports such large file sizes, how are > > the file contents accessed? And does the kernel syscall allow larger > > offsets? > > There is an lseeek64 variant which takes a 64 bit offset on all > platforms. xfs_mkfile.c uses this, for example. Is there a performance difference using lseek() and lseek64()? If there is, does that difference exist on 64 bit platforms? James Rich |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE - Missing macros for the FreeBSD build, Russell Cattelan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | 2.4.20-xfs, Processes in ,,D'' state., Krzysztof Rusocki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: using lseek() on large files, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: using lseek() on large files, Chris Wedgwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |