2Gig limitation - is this limited to Unix or does it also affect VMS?

[Robert Edis]

G'day Bob

If you SET REPORT LIMIT 0 in OpenVMS does the 2 gig
record limit still apply?

Regards,

Blue


--- "Deskin, Bob" <Bob.Deskin@Cognos.COM> wrote:

> PowerHouse itself is limited to 2 Gig records in its
> counters such as
> REPORT LIMIT. My understanding is that C-ISAM is
> also limited to 2 Gig
> records. There used to be a limitation of a 2
> Gigabyte file size. Large
> file support overcomes this size limitation but not
> the record count
> limit.
>  
> And I apologize for the misuse of gigabyte in the
> Large File Support
> discussion. I remember trying to be very careful
> about using records
> where I meant a count and gigabyte where I meant the
> size in bytes. The
> last use of gigabyte was incorrect.
>  
> I do not know about RMS ISAM specifically. I have
> never heard of any
> complaints (which doesn't mean there weren't any)
> regarding number of
> bytes.
> Bob Deskin              
> Senior Product Manager, Application Development
> Tools, Cognos Inc. 
> bob.deskin@cognos.com (613) 738-1338 ext 7268 FAX:
> (613) 727-1178 
> 3755 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 9707 Stn. T, Ottawa ON
> K1G 4K9 CANADA 
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: powerh-l-admin@lists.sowder.com
> [mailto:powerh-l-admin@lists.sowder.com] On Behalf
> Of Joe Boyle
> 	Sent: February 2, 2005 1:18 PM
> 	To: 'Philip Jackson'; powerh-l@lists.sowder.com
> 	Subject: RE: 2Gig limitation - is this limited to
> Unix or does
> it also affect VMS?
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	the details below would suggest that you are
> correct when you
> say 'the limitation was more in the C-ISAM libraries
> than the PowerHouse
> libraries/products.', but if that is the case why
> limit the number of
> records to 2^31, unless there is a PH internal issue
> after all; and if
> there is a PH internal problem, does it affect VMS
> also ? Which is where
> I started :-)
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Regards, Joe. 
> 
> 	
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 	From: powerh-l-admin@lists.sowder.com
> [mailto:powerh-l-admin@lists.sowder.com] On Behalf
> Of Philip Jackson
> 	Sent: 02 February 2005 17:47
> 	To: powerh-l@lists.sowder.com
> 	Subject: RE: 2Gig limitation - is this limited to
> Unix or does
> it also affect VMS?
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	From the manual for 8.4
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Large File Support (UNIX)
> 
> 	Direct and sequential files, non-indexed subfiles
> and portable
> subfiles can now exceed the two
> 
> 	gigabyte limit in total number of bytes.
> 
> 	The file must be recreated to be able to grow
> beyond two
> gigabytes. An existing file cannot grow
> 
> 	beyond the two gigabyte limit.
> 
> 	The file system must be able handle large files and
> must be
> configured to allow them.
> 
> 	PowerHouse 4GL can still only process up to
> 2,147,483,647
> records.
> 
> 	Note: PowerHouse 8.43 supports large files for
> C-ISAM within the
> limit set by C-ISAM version
> 
> 	7.25 which is greater than 2 gigabytes. The maximum
> number of
> records supported by C-ISAM
> 
> 	is the same as for flat files, 2 gigabytes.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	which I take to mean that non-indexed files can
> exceed
> 2,147,483,647 records now with some system
> changes/file recreations, but
> that indexed ones can't.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Bit confusing the way they seem to use gigabytes to
> mean the
> number of records, as opposed to the number of
> bytes.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	I actually understood the limitation was more in
> the C-ISAM
> libraries than the PowerHouse libraries/products.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 
> 	Philip
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 	From: powerh-l-admin@lists.sowder.com
> [mailto:powerh-l-admin@lists.sowder.com] On Behalf
> Of Joe Boyle
> 	Sent: 02 February 2005 17:15
> 	To: 'Johnson, Harold A EDUC:EX';
> powerh-l@lists.sowder.com
> 	Subject: RE: 2Gig limitation - is this limited to
> Unix or does
> it also affect VMS?
> 
> 	I think a test case was logged on Unix using a QTP
> which
> attempted to write records out to a subfile, and
> once the number of
> bytes written out exceeded 2^31 a fatal error
> occurred.  I then recall
> that this behaviour was fixed to the extent that now
> the failure ( not
> error as this is a new limitation ) will occur when
> 2^31 'records' have
> been written.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	I assume that quick would have the same problem
> when reading or
> writing similar numbers of records, but I am not
> clear if this affects
> Unix only, or if VMS would suffer similarly.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	I seem to recall that BD once said that this would
> affect RDB's
> also, as the call originally related to CISAM, I do
> not know if RMS on
> VMS is affected.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	I'm not thinking of the quick screen call issue,
> but the
> underlying causes might be related as far as I know.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	I seem to recall that the limitation was a result
> of PH being a
> 32 bit application - and presumably able to map to
> 'only' 2^31 addresses
> on the stack.
> 
> 	Regards, Joe. 
> 
> 	
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===