From: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | How large file is really large - pathconf results |
Date: | 2008-03-17 16:51:15 |
Message-ID: | 47DEA183.4070902@sun.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Regarding to discussion about large segment size of table files a test
pathconf function (see
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pathconf.html)
You can see output there:
_PC_FILESIZEBITS - 3rd column
_PC_LINK_MAX - 4th column
_PC_NAME_MAX - 5th column
_PC_PATH_MAX - 6th column
Solaris Nevada ZFS 64 -1 255 1024
UFS 41 32767 255 1024
FAT 33 1 8 1024
NFS 41 32767 255 1024
Solaris 8 UFS 41 32767 255 1024
NFS 40 32767 255 1024
Centos4(2.6.11) EXT3 64 32000 255 4096
XFS 64 2147483647 255 4096
Mac OSX leopard HFS+ 64 32767 255 1024
The result is not really good :(. I tested it also on HP.UX 11.11/11.23,
Tru64 v4.0 and MacOS tiger (big thanks to Tomas Honzak for machine
access) and Tiger and Tru64 does not recognize _PC_FILESIZEBITS
definition and HP_UX returns errno=EINVAL. I also don't trust Linux
result on EXT3. It seems that only Solaris and Leopard returns
relatively correct result (33 bit on FAT FS is probably not correct).
I attached my test program, please let me know your result from your
favorite OS/FS (binary must be saved on tested FS).
However, I think we cannot use this method to test max file size on FS :(.
Comments, ideas?
Zdenek
PS: Does pg_dump strip a large file or not?
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pathconf.c | text/x-csrc | 1.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-03-17 16:52:18 | Re: New style of hash join proposal |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-03-17 16:51:01 | Re: Rewriting Free Space Map |