PDA

View Full Version : Size limit on files being patched?

neergj
10-14-2008, 12:15 PM
I am getting a "Error 3210 Could not create diff file."

Is there a size limit on a file that can be patched? I have a large file (600MB) that I can't patch. Neither file (version 1, version 2) is being used, and both files are good on the harddrive.

I am using Visual Patch 2.0, would version 3.0 solve my problem?

BTW, I can patch all my smaller files with no problems.

Thanks,
John
neergj
10-16-2008, 07:14 AM
My problem with patching large files occured when I was running VP under Windows XP (64bit). When I tried the same thing using Windows XP (32bit), it was able to create the patch.

So it appears to only be a problem with VP under Windows XP 64.
Lorne
10-16-2008, 02:14 PM
I am getting a "Error 3210 Could not create diff file."
...
So it appears to only be a problem with VP under Windows XP 64.

I believe the error you ran into was fixed in the latest update for 3.0.

It has to do with the way the virtual memory system page size is reported under WOW in 64 bit windows. Somewhat ironically, a 32 bit app needs to perform "unbuffered" reads in smaller pieces on a 64 bit system than it does on a 32 bit system.

Is there a size limit on a file that can be patched? I have a large file (600MB) that I can't patch.

Visual Patch has been tested creating patches for source files well over 1 GB, so 600 MB would not be a problem. :)
neergj
10-17-2008, 05:13 AM
Lorne,
I did upgrade to VP 3.0.2.0 and still had the problem with XP64. Is there a later VP version or fix that I could apply?
Thanks,
John
upeters
10-17-2008, 09:13 AM
The latest version at this moment is 3.0.3.0.
jassing
10-18-2008, 11:06 AM
It has to do with the way the virtual memory system page size is reported under WOW in 64 bit windows. Somewhat ironically, a 32 bit app needs to perform "unbuffered" reads in smaller pieces on a 64 bit system than it does on a 32 bit system.
Visual Patch has been tested creating patches for source files well over 1 GB, so 600 MB would not be a problem. :)


I just tried to create patch with 2versions (each with 1 file) and the file was 1.6 gigs on winxp x64 with 4 gigs of ram.
Ignoring the "low ram warning"; it ran for about 20-30 minutes then errored out with "cannot access target file"

Trying to create patch with 2 gig files yeilded the process running for the same time and then telling me I couldn't patch files greater than 2 gigs.

Seems like there is an issue with VP and x64.
Lorne
10-18-2008, 10:16 PM
Can you try the same tests on a 32 bit system to confirm it's a 64-bit OS issue?
jassing
10-19-2008, 09:33 AM
Can you try the same tests on a 32 bit system to confirm it's a 64-bit OS issue?

same 2 files, same vp2 project, winxp 2 gig ram; built fine. (took hours, but no errors)
Lorne
10-19-2008, 11:09 AM
Thanks Josh.

It shouldn't be possible for the same WOW64 issue to exist in 3.0.3.0 (unless my fix didn't make it into the build for some reason)...I actually changed the code to keep adjusting the largest read/write size smaller until there are no errors, so it should be self-righting.

I'll check with Adam on Monday to see if that fix was tested on a 4 GB system running a 64-bit OS or not...it could be a separate issue related to how available free memory is reported under WOW64.
jassing
10-20-2008, 09:21 PM
I'll check with Adam on Monday to see if that fix was tested on a 4 GB system running a 64-bit OS or not...it could be a separate issue related to how available free memory is reported under WOW64.

Any info? I have a few systems here with various 64bit OS's (single & dual proc) I can test things on....
Lorne
10-20-2008, 11:19 PM
No update yet. Thanks for the offer, Josh...I'll (or someone will) let you know if we need to take you up on that.
neergj
11-04-2008, 07:39 AM
Finally got the latest VP version and it solved my problem. I guess there is something to be said for keeping current.....
Lorne
11-05-2008, 04:36 PM
Finally got the latest VP version and it solved my problem. I guess there is something to be said for keeping current.....Glad to hear it worked! Thanks for the update. As I mentioned above, the same bug shouldn't be able to happen in 3.0.3.0 since I made the code self-correcting (for that issue, at least).

jassing: can you confirm what you were using when you performed your test?
jassing
11-05-2008, 06:04 PM
Glad to hear it worked! Thanks for the update. As I mentioned above, the same bug shouldn't be able to happen in 3.0.3.0 since I made the code self-correcting (for that issue, at least).

jassing: can you confirm what you were using when you performed your test?

when did 3.0.3 come out? That's the version I have...