- 2019.10.01 19:10 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2019.10.01 19:37 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Roger Leigh
- 2019.10.01 21:42 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2019.10.02 02:39 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
-
2019.10.10 12:10 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
- 2019.10.10 12:14 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Edward Lam
-
2019.10.10 18:41 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Roger Leigh
- 2019.10.10 19:11 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Even Rouault
-
2019.10.10 19:40 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2019.10.10 22:24 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
-
2019.10.10 12:10 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
- 2019.10.02 12:29 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Edward Lam
2019.10.10 14:21 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
I have since reproduced it using a "real" network share accessed from the VM. I don't have a real hardware XP to test with.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Tiff [mailto:tiff-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Paquet
Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 08:14, Edward Lam <edward@sidefx.com> a écrit:
On 10/10/2019 8:10 AM, David C. Partridge wrote:
> I like to propose that this be adopted into the official codebase :)
Do we really want to be calling GetVersion() on every single I/O call on Windows?
No. It's horrible. At the very least don't call it for blocks which are already small enough, which will be nearly all blocks for a well formed file.
Or perhaps handle read() failure by a second attempt with smaller blocks, on windows only.
David, have you reproduced this with an actual network server? Or only with the vmware host drive? It could very well be a vmware problem too, although I suspect it might not fail so nicely in that case (with error code and everything).