| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4109.1 | Curiosity or boneheadedness? | DECWET::DAVIS | eleven benevolent elephants, eleven... | Wed Sep 12 1990 13:01 | 16 |
| Since using LSv4.0 I have gotten rid of my ST-506 drives and gone to an
all SCSI drive subsystem. I haven't made up my mind whether to
continue to troubleshoot this problem due to the time involved with
reformatting and restoring my partition(s). The problem *may* have due
to timing differences between my faster(new) Supra controller and the
slow Adaptec/ST-506 drives. Damn, curiosity killed the cat... I will
try it tonight and report my findings. BTW, YOU can try it. Just use
the command "ls -R sys:" to get a recursive directory of the sys:
partition on your HARD DRIVE. If there is a problem you will probably
get a listing of your current directory only then your shell prompt.
If you "ls" other directories in the sys: partition, voila, they are
gone.
mark
p.s. V4.0 of LS is HUGE. It eats up memory when made resident.
|
| 4109.2 | | EDABOT::MCAFEE | Steve McAfee | Wed Sep 12 1990 15:54 | 6 |
| I seem to recall someone on USENET saying you need to increase your
stack size for large recursive directory searches. If they've
turned off stack checking (ala cc -v), then maybe this is whats
causing the problem.
- steve
|
| 4109.3 | larger than 10K? | DECWET::DAVIS | eleven benevolent elephants, eleven... | Wed Sep 12 1990 15:59 | 4 |
| That may be it, though my stack is normally 10K. Do you recall how
much of an increase was mentioned. 10K is quite large.
m
|
| 4109.4 | | EDABOT::MCAFEE | Steve McAfee | Wed Sep 12 1990 17:29 | 6 |
| No I don't remember, but if 10K isn't enough then there is probably a
bug. Maybe it uses a recursive sort function which has a bug or
inefficiency. I don't even have an Amiga right now or I'd take a look
myself...
- steve
|
| 4109.5 | Works for me | DECWET::DAVIS | eleven benevolent elephants, eleven... | Wed Sep 12 1990 22:32 | 5 |
| I executed the "ls -R sys:" command and it worked. I used ls version
4.0k. All seems ok. As I mentioned above my stack is set to 10K by
default so my previous problems were most likely hardware.
mark
|
| 4109.6 | LS should only read | KETJE::VLASIU | | Thu Sep 13 1990 04:37 | 8 |
| Normally LS just reads from the disk, so it should not affect it in anyway.
If the disk is affected, this means LS is infected by some sort of virus or it
has a *very* big bug which determines an uncontrolled write operation on disk.
Me, I'm using it and have not yet encountered problems. I seem to remember that
the first observation on LS was about a 4.1 version which is not the 4.0 version
which I use. But who knows ?
Sorin
|
| 4109.7 | I'm happy, I'll stay with this | DECWET::DAVIS | eleven benevolent elephants, eleven... | Thu Sep 13 1990 13:01 | 6 |
| You may be right. I am a little confused on which version I had the
problem. LS v4.0k is a little larger than 16K. I think there was
another version out that was ~40K or so, correct me if I am wrong. I
am happy with v4.0k and this is what I'll use.
md
|
| 4109.8 | CLOSE YOUR EYES AND HIT RETURN!!! | POLAR::GOSLING | | Fri Sep 14 1990 15:19 | 22 |
| RE: .1
> try it tonight and report my findings. BTW, YOU can try it. Just use
> the command "ls -R sys:" to get a recursive directory of the sys:
> partition on your HARD DRIVE. If there is a problem you will probably
Do I look that stupid :-)
After reading some of the other responses - particularly those of
folks who HAVE NOT had any problems - I gave it a try. Firstly I
did a recursive listing on a couple of dummy directories I created
and populated with no problem. I then stepped beyond the bounds
of sound judgement and did the same thing on my 'production'
directories / subdiretories, again - with a sigh of relief -
everything worked as advertised.
My stack is set to 10K and the verion of LS I have is 4.0k.
Thanks for the various response to my initial request.
Art
|