home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20000824-20010305
/
000141_news@columbia.edu _Thu Dec 21 03:12:21 2000.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2001-03-05
|
2KB
Return-Path: <news@columbia.edu>
Received: from watsun.cc.columbia.edu (watsun.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.39.2])
by fozimane.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29359
for <kermit.misc@cpunix.cc.columbia.edu>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 03:12:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA23078
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 03:12:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04411
for kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:45:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
From: dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs)
Subject: re "log debug" ==> 50mb! How to get it to you?
Date: 21 Dec 2000 02:44:29 -0500
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Message-ID: <91scct$rj$1@panix2.panix.com>
To: kermit.misc@columbia.edu
Frank, you asked me to run a failing kermit download
via 'log debug' and 'log packets'.
Last night it came to 50mb (on a download that worked).
Just how am I supposed to get this 50mb file to you?
I sure can't easily upload it to panix; not only is
the big file the size of an emacs-tar-gz, ie many
hours of uploading (assuming it works at all!).
I could send you a tape -- but my tape drive is
of a type you've likely never heard of -- the
Ecrix VXA-1 (has its own format for how tape gets
written.)
-----------------
-----------------
IDEA:
Would be neat if you had some filter program, maybe
in perl, that would scan through that humongous file,
and outuput only the parts that show packet errors,
etc.
Or via two passes, first pass deciding what lines
and linenum-ranges you want, etc, and then after done,
run through, in a 2nd pass, it outputs those
"interesting" sections.
---
I sent mail yesterday saying everything seemed
to wort ok ---well, not so. On some files,
yes, on other ones, no.
David