From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MZNw5-0006H6-OE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:48:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C23D6E0268; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.askja.de (mail.askja.de [83.137.103.136]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA01E0268 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static-87-79-89-40.netcologne.de ([87.79.89.40] helo=zone.wonkology.org) by mail.askja.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MZNvp-0003tA-5V for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:48:21 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by zone.wonkology.org with local; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:48:17 +0200 id 00010499.4A7C1481.00005BEE From: Alex Schuster To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Weird slocate behaviour - file ignored? Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:48:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.28-tuxonice-r3_3; KDE/4.2.4; i686; ; ) References: <6AF8CEA7-7B7D-4B6A-818F-7DD7410013D3@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <617BA82A-0E5E-4489-A4E5-1475B9CC258E@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <4A7BF46A.8090509@coolmail.se> In-Reply-To: <4A7BF46A.8090509@coolmail.se> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200908071348.15679.wonko@wonkology.org> X-Archives-Salt: ee48c26c-905a-49d3-ae1f-4a5aa66e8e6d X-Archives-Hash: f71ed0728e97ff792911bbf0ee4d1a87 pk writes: > So why does it prune files with bigger size than about 4Gb? The only > thing I can think of is that my machine is 32bit... But why would > slocate use file size as a factor? I can confirm the problem on my 32bit machine with default updatedb.conf. I had to emerge slocate first for that, though - normally I am using mlocate, which does NOT show the problem. So using mlocate instead of slocate would be a workaround, and mlocate is supposed to be faster than slocate anyway. https://fedorahosted.org/mlocate/ Wonko