> Question 1: Does the OS (32-bit versus 64-bit) have anything to do with
> this?

Not directly.  Since Solaris 2.6, even the 32 bit OS has access to 64
bit file offsets.

Of course if you actually have a 64 bit executable (rare), then it would
be very unlikely to have a 2G limit.

Solaris apparantly has an old version of bash on that release.  'bash'
is not mentioned in the largefile man page as being safe.

> 'isainfo -v' shows 32-bit on this Solaris box and same on Linux box. The
> other thing that seems a little odd is that the man page for 'largefile'
> indicates that mkfile, dd and cat commands are all large file aware. I
> would think since dd and cat are large file aware and not large file
> safe then there would not have been a problem, but guess the shell can
> inforce a limit?

If 'dd' or 'cat' were actually writing to the file then you'd be fine.
If they're just writing to STDOUT and you're redirecting it to a file
with '>', then the fact they they are okay is irrelevant.  The shell
itself must be largefile aware.  You'll note the other shells are
explicitly mentioned on the largefile page.

> Question 2: Why is it that when I run `ulimit -f`, in Bash shell, it
> says unlimited? Seems like it is limited.

This is not a 'limit' issue enforced by the OS.  It is whether or not
the program can correctly access past the 2G point of a file.  The two
are separate issues.

--
Darren Dunham                                           ddunham AT taos DOT com
Senior Technical Consultant         TAOS            http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=