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
--
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 t
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 o
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 send
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
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
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 th
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 c
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 a
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 are
10 matches
Mail list logo
