in reply to Re^2: Filesize (-s) is consistenly reporting too small of size in Win32
in thread Filesize (-s) is consistenly reporting too small of size in Win32

Could you zip the file and send me a copy via email?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."
  • Comment on Re^3: Filesize (-s) is consistenly reporting too small of size in Win32

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Filesize (-s) is consistenly reporting too small of size in Win32
by wilsond (Scribe) on Jan 17, 2009 at 11:33 UTC

    I rebooted my WinXP box and now everything looks fine. **ARGH** I hate Windows. Why would a reboot fix it? I don't know what the problem was at all. It was consistently failing, now it's consistently not failing. In any case, I appreciate your help.


    Nature is not cruel, pitiless, indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous — indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
    - Richard Dawkins
[reply]
      I rebooted my WinXP box and now everything looks fine. **ARGH** I hate Windows. Why would a reboot fix it?

      Might it be a virus? It's Windows after all.

      I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth Remember How Lucky You Are
[reply]
Re^4: Filesize (-s) is consistenly reporting too small of size in Win32
by wilsond (Scribe) on Jan 17, 2009 at 11:37 UTC

    Just a thought... "dir" in Windows doesn't cache, does it? That's the only possible thing I can think of. I was careful to be sure that I was testing against the same filename in "dir" and "-s".


    Nature is not cruel, pitiless, indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous — indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
    - Richard Dawkins
[reply]
      Just a thought... "dir" in Windows doesn't cache, does it?

      Nope. The file may (probably is given its small size) cache in the file system cache, but there is no way for it to be updated without the cache being flushed. If that were possible, we (and the world) would have heard about it long ago.

      And there is no way that a re-boot fixed it, cos there's no way for the OP scenario to happen. Perl, dir, explorer and every other program that will show you the size of the file queries that information using the same system API.

      The only possibility that I can think of to explain what you saw is that the file was updated between obtaining the two figures--but that doesn't sit well with your "consistantly" claim.

      Think about it. XP has been around for 7 years. Perl has run on Win32 for 10+ years. If this was a possibilty, someone (else) would have noticed it by now.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

        I agree. But the file wasn't being changed between filesize tests. If I were on the otherside of this, I'd assume the user is an idiot and that they made a dumb user error. I may have, but I haven't found it yet. If I do find such a thing, I'll come back and note it just in case some other poor sap does the same dumb thing. Until then, it's a mystery to me.

        Just FYI: My WinXP environment is running on VMware Server using a virtual hard disk (not hosted on a remote share or anything) hosted on a Linux server. I doubt that it affects this... and I certainly hope it doesn't. I'd rather hope I'm just an idiot and that I missed something obvious. Time will tell.


        Nature is not cruel, pitiless, indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous — indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
        - Richard Dawkins
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom