From: Kon Lovett (klovett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-14 06:04:53
On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:14 AM, Kevin Wheatley wrote:
> Kon Lovett wrote:
>> Maybe use the
>> long /* free blocks avail to non-superuser */
>> field rather than the
>> long f_bfree; /* free blocks in fs */
> f_bavail; is not a documented feature of IRIX's statfs but actually
> thinking about it it would be better to use statvfs() which does
Sorry, I see only thru my tiny window. No IRIX exposure, except SGI
> However do all OS's have a concept of two different answers to how
> much free space there is, and what would an application developer want
> to know, if I'm writing a 'df' style application then I might want
> both. I guess the available space for the user is more interesting..
> but then you get into quota's etc.
Yes, I wanted to point out the different answers issue. For server &
desktop OS, probably yes, >1 answer to the space question, depending on
who is asking the question. For embedded OS, w/ backing store of some
kind, running a specialized, contained, app, maybe only 1 answer.
I think the free space answer will range in exactness - race issues,
quota's (as you point out), etc. Possibly one can only rely on the
value as a hint, and just use it to postpone failsafe.
> | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this |
> | Senior Technology | My employer for certain |
> | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk