X-Originating-IP:	[200.42.4.138]
From:	"Norberto Alfredo Bensa" <ceo AT nbensacomputers DOT com>
To:	"Martin Str|mberg" <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Cc:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<200012302330 DOT AAA15721 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Subject:	Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c
Date:	Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:57:48 -0300
Organization:	nBens@ Computers
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID:	<OE75pzBUMiYm9kGR6gn00002404@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	01 Jan 2001 08:04:21.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[7260A150:01C073C9]
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

From: "Martin Str|mberg" <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> According to Norberto Alfredo Bensa:
> > Here it goes...but first, I've made some last-minute changes:
> >
> > 1st. I've realised that this new version of statfs will fail on the very
first
> > Windows 95 version (4.00.950), as that version doesn't support
> > FAT32 drives. Free space reporting on those Windows releases is
> > limited to ~2GB, even on network drives.
>
> Did you try your code on WINDOZE 4.0 (i. e. 95) and saw that or are
> you just guessing?
>

Yes, I've tested on my Win95 (4.00.950) the very first Win95 version.

> >
> > One more thing, reporting for network drives, is only totally functional
> > if running under Windows. Other environments may be limited to
> > ~2GB (I'm guessing here)
>
> Well, on my DOZE 6.22 with TCP/IP I get the same results as before (up
> to ~4GiB is reported), so you didn't break anything in that setup.
>

Good...

> As a matter of fact with your work we get up to ~4GiB on networks
> drives in WINDOZE too. Great work!
> L00k, df compiled with cvs version:
>
> WINDOZE.4 1           520576  468752    51824     90%   c:/
> SWAP                  521368  315136   206232     60%   d:/
> Drive E:              717968  227872   490096     32%   e:/
> APPS                 5960700 4509468  1451232     76%   f:/
> GAMES                4723280 3934256   789024     83%   g:/
> \\SERVER\MIRROR      2097120 2047680    49440     98%   m:/
> MS-RAMDRIVE            16360       8    16352      0%   t:/
> \\SERVER\MARTIN      2097120       0  2097120      0%   u:/
>
> With your version:
> Filesystem         1024-blocks  Used Available Capacity Mounted on
> WINDOZE.4 1           520572  468748    51824     90%   c:/
> SWAP                  521368  315136   206232     60%   d:/
> Drive E:              717968  227872   490096     32%   e:/
> APPS                 5960696 4509448  1451248     76%   f:/
> GAMES                4723276 3934248   789028     83%   g:/
> \\SERVER\MIRROR      4128705 4079628    49077     99%   m:/
> MS-RAMDRIVE            16360       8    16352      0%   t:/
> \\SERVER\MARTIN      4128705       0  4128705      0%   u:/
>

Are those network drives shared over TCP/IP and running under Win9x with
FAT32 support? hmmm... I guess you're running df from DOS as you have a
ramdisk...

I'm using TCP/IP under Win98, one drive is ~16GB, the other one is ~8GB and
reporting here is not limited to ~4GB...  the output from df:

% df --human-readable
Filesystem            Size  Used  Avail  Capacity Mounted on
WINDOWS.98             16G   10G   5.3G     66%   c:/
SWAP                  345M  100M   245M     29%   d:/
WINDOWS95             604M  604M      0    100%   e:/
\\K6300\C             7.7G  6.5G   1.2G     85%   f:/
\\P5233\C             202M  160M    42M     79%   g:/


> So I'll check in your patch in a couple of days if nobody objects.
>
> It would be good to get this tested on DOZE 6.21 and earlier and DOZE
> 7.0 and WINDOZE before FAT32 arrived to see we don't mess up anything.
>

I've tested on DOS 7.0 and Windows 95 (the very first version) and it seams
to work ok, unfortunately limited to ~2GB... I guess that services 217303 and
217302 were not implemented on that version.

Best regards,
Norberto


BTW, I've could not compile fileutils 3.16 with libc from CVS. I sitll don't
know why, but compilation crash and it does really bad, in fact, my system
resets!... The problem seams to be on: ln -s [source] [dest]. Does anybody
have some similar problem?

- Raw text -