Error in script execution
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: Samsung ML-1610
Next: PAM
From: Grant on 4 Mar 2006 21:23 On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 19:59:57 +0100, Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist(a)deadspam.com> wrote: >Smbmount with the 2.4.22 kernel is not able to handle files bigger than 2 >GB, but the 2.4.31 kernel is able to handle those files. The OP was >running Slackware 8.1 so I suppose that he is unable to handle >files bigger than 2 GB on an smb mount. Samba is weird, in one direction (I think writing file to samba share on winxp from linux) one gets the 2GB limit. But reading the same file in winxp from linux samba share was okay. transferring a DVD image a while ago. Grant. -- Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't make eight cats pull a sled through the snow.
From: CL on 5 Mar 2006 04:52 richard wrote: >> Hi, >> Thank for seriously trying to help. >> >> > What version of Slackware are you using? (10.2) >> 8.1 >> >> > What shell is this script using? (BASH, TCSH) >> BASH >> >> > What type are the filesystems that data is being copied from and to? >> (EXT2, REISERFS) >> REISERFS > from ReiserFS to NTFS through a SAMBA mount? >> > Does googling "File size limit exceeded cp" bring you any clues? >> Oh. I try "20213 File size limit exceededcp" before posting & it has no >> hit. > > Upon googling for what I did I came across several different reasons for the > error message. The main one being filesystem limits which is what I think > is the problem here. > > Not sure of a solution off the top of my head yet. Mainly because I don't > know what you are backing up (size) and to where (filesystem). > > Richard :) I am not sure but should be NTFS. But if it is NTFS, there would be no limit on file size. The total files size is about 3.6GB. I have to check for each file size first.
From: Henrik Carlqvist on 5 Mar 2006 05:51 Grant <bugsplatter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Samba is weird, in one direction (I think writing file to samba share on > winxp from linux) one gets the 2GB limit. But reading the same file in > winxp from linux samba share was okay. transferring a DVD image a while > ago. Yep, that is exactly the same behaviour as I saw with Slackware 9.1. However, Slackware 10.2 has no such 2 GB limit. The limit comes from an old specification of the SMB protocol. At some time the SMB protocol was updated to support files bigger than 2 GB. Then Samba was also updated, but it took some more time for the Linux kernel to get updated. The 2 GB file size limit is a rather common limit. There is a 2 GB limit on files on VFAT, iso9660 and with NFS version 2. NFS is the "unix way" of sharing disks on the network. With NFS version 3 there is no longer any 2 GB limit. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc7(at)uthyres.com Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root(a)variousus.net root(a)localhost
From: CL on 8 Mar 2006 00:27 > > Loki Harfagr <loki(a)DarkDesign.free.fr> wrote: > > Smbmount with the 2.4.22 kernel is not able to handle files bigger than 2 > > GB, but the 2.4.31 kernel is able to handle those files. The OP was > > running Slackware 8.1 so I suppose that he is unable to handle > > files bigger than 2 GB on an smb mount. Hi, I tried copy to NTFS drive & the same problem so gone my hope that the culprit is with FAT32. Any solutions other then upgrade the kernel?
From: CL on 8 Mar 2006 01:07
"CL" <cl(a)screamx.com> wrote in message news:440ab683$1_2(a)news.tm.net.my... > richard wrote: > > > > Upon googling for what I did I came across several different reasons for the > > error message. The main one being filesystem limits which is what I think > > is the problem here. > > > > Not sure of a solution off the top of my head yet. Mainly because I don't > > know what you are backing up (size) and to where (filesystem). > > > > Richard :) > I am not sure but should be NTFS. But if it is NTFS, there would be no > limit on file size. The total files size is about 3.6GB. I have to check > for each file size first. Hi, I got 1 single file over 2GB that cause this error. I am on NTFS. I think Loki is right.. |