From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1640 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2003 16:03:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1630 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2003 16:03:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2003 16:03:05 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 682B532A8A7; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:03:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: last days of htdig Message-ID: <20030927160257.GD19912@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Hans-Peter Nilsson , overseers@sources.redhat.com References: <20030927152054.GB19912@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:54:23AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> I think we've already been over this ground, > >Nah, not really. I think I mentioned a vague hunch that there >were some large-file-patches for the kernel, allowing >2G (or >better, 4G) files and that they would help. But I think that >was far from reality, or at least reality of today(s kernel). > >> HP, but couldn't we >> just recompile htdig on the new kernel to bypass the 2G limit? > >Off the top of my head, I think gnu "sort", sizeof int and >sizeof long (or if we're lucky, just size_t :-) would be the >obvious open sores^Wissues. Ah, ok. It's never easy. >Are we on 64-bit iron yet? When, when, when...? :-) :-) :-) I know I'm counting my pennies for my home machine. Athlon64. Mmmmm... cgf