Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "old_linux_direct".
2023 Feb 16
2
Missing Files/Missing Folders from an NFS Share
...gt; > position (d_off), which is a 64 bit signed value. This can cause
> > readdir and
> > telldir to return negative values.
>
> Known issue that we had to deal with 25 years ago for 32 bit systems
> when glibc first decided to make lseek() return signed values (struct
> old_linux_direct still has it as an unsigned value).
>
> So VAST have had a long time to learn not to do this...
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust at hammerspace.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>...
2023 Feb 16
1
Missing Files/Missing Folders from an NFS Share
...), which is a 64 bit signed value. This can cause
>> > readdir and
>> > telldir to return negative values.
>>
>> Known issue that we had to deal with 25 years ago for 32 bit systems
>> when glibc first decided to make lseek() return signed values (struct
>> old_linux_direct still has it as an unsigned value).
>>
>> So VAST have had a long time to learn not to do this...
>>
>> --
>> Trond Myklebust
>> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
>> trond.myklebust at hammerspace.com
>> ----------------------------------------...
2023 Feb 16
1
Missing Files/Missing Folders from an NFS Share
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 08:46:26PM +0100, Conor Armstrong wrote:
> I'm trying to get to the?bottom of where the normal directory functions
> differ in results for block storage compared to NFS.?
> I created a short c script to look at the offsets generated for the
> directory when block storage backed in comparison to NFS backed.?
> block storage backed are always