Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-18 Thread Graham Leggett
Brad Nicholes wrote: I guess the other question would be, is this even an issue? Do users expect to be able to download a file larger than 4gig or even 2gig? DVD images are in the ballpark of these sort of sizes, so I would say it is important, yes. Regards, Graham --

File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Brad Nicholes
Win32 and NetWare seem to be the only platforms that support large files. Has anybody on the Win32 platform actually tried to download a file larger than 4gig? I am running into all kinds of 32bit/64bit incompatibilities in the bucket code. There are a number of places where file lengths

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Brad Nicholes wrote: incompatibilities in the bucket code. There are a number of places where file lengths are defined as apr_size_t rather than apr_off_t. What is the downside of redefining these variables as apr_off_t (ie. off64_t rather than off_t)? We went back and

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Brad Nicholes
Buckets being restricted to a size_t is kind of what I expected. So here is what I am seeing and maybe you can help me work through this. In ap_content_length_filter() the code attempts to add up all the lengths of all of the buckets and put that value into r-bytes_sent before setting the

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 11:30 AM 12/17/2003, Brad Nicholes wrote: Buckets being restricted to a size_t is kind of what I expected. So here is what I am seeing and maybe you can help me work through this. In ap_content_length_filter() the code attempts to add up all the lengths of all of the buckets and put that

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Brad Nicholes wrote: before setting the content-length header. The problem is that there appears to be only one bucket and the length of that bucket is (actual_filesize - 4gig) for any file greater than 4gig. Weird, but I can believe it. Where should the dividing up of

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Brad Nicholes
Thanks. After doing some more digging I also ran across this chunk of code myself. Casting the filesize to apr_size_t in the #else part of the code was a dead give-away. I guess NetWare hit the odd combination here in that we don't have sendfile but we do have large files. This is what was

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Brad Nicholes wrote: Thanks. After doing some more digging I also ran across this chunk of code myself. Casting the filesize to apr_size_t in the #else part of the code was a dead give-away. I guess NetWare hit the odd combination here in that we don't have

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Wan-Teh Chang
Brad Nicholes wrote on 12/17/2003, 9:01 AM: Win32 and NetWare seem to be the only platforms that support large files. Recent versions of the major Unix variants have large file support, too. Has anybody on the Win32 platform actually tried to download a file larger than 4gig? You only

Re: File buckets and downloadng files larger than 4gig...

2003-12-17 Thread Brad Nicholes
So far 4 gig seems to be the cut off. I have tested files between 2 and 4gig and they seem to work well. But when I try greater than 4gig, it doesn't work. According to a sniffer trace, it is now reporting the correct content length (with the fix to split the file into multiple buckets), but