Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #10027Re: Giant disks
From: Peter da Silva
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1988 17:36
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1988 17:36
17 lines
1181 bytes
1181 bytes
In article <9579@swan.ulowell.edu>, page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: > stevex@ziebmef.UUCP (Steve Tibbett) wrote: > >A 4096 byte block size would let you have 8 times the amount of storage > >the current 512 byte block size would before overflowing... > That's OK for DOS, bot not for Exec. Exec wants IOStdReq's in terms > of byte offsets, and there's only 32 bits in the offset. Is this a 32-bit limit on *device* size or just on *file* size? I think that you could live with a 32-bit limit on files with a 48-bit limit on devices/partitions... But, yeh. It's totally appropriate to start working on ways around this. Best would probably be a second set of calls with bigger offsets. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2798@sugar.uu.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!mitel!uunet!sugar!peterReferences:
<4912@cbmvax.UUCP> <176@antares.UUCP> <9579@swan.ulowell.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!mitel!uunet!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Giant disks Message-ID: <2798@sugar.uu.net> Date: 12 Oct 88 17:36:02 GMT Article-I.D.: sugar.2798 References: <4912@cbmvax.UUCP> <176@antares.UUCP> <9579@swan.ulowell.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX Lines: 17