Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:05:14 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: RESEND: Patch to computer st_blksize in struct stat
In-Reply-To: <3C05577B.590A4890@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1011129100435.10998B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > > I chose 32K, because that's what I found on my system.
> > 
> > How did you find that?  What methods of reporting the block size of a
> > remote drive did you use?
> 
> statfs() returned 32K on my network drives. Is this not reliable on
> network drives?

I think it isn't.  And your example:

> It may not be relevant, but I mapped a share from my Linux box, which is
> running kernel 2.2.19 with Samba 2.0.10. The block size on the ext2
> partition containing the share is 4K.

...just proved I was right ;-)