Brandon Fosdick wrote:
If my theory is correct, then I think the solution is to find a way to
stream data to the storage provider earlier in the request process. I
don't know if that's a core issue, or just some config bits in mod_dav,
or my provider, that need to be fiddled. It's odd that
Plüm wrote:
Have you checked if you can write the files with the default mod_dav_fs
provider to
the disk?
good suggestion, thanks...
Ok, same test setup that I posted about the other day, but this time I used mod_dav_fs.
I'm getting slightly different behavior, in that the upload works in
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Brandon Fosdick
At this point I'm not sure if I should bother trying the
large file hack for 2.0.55 or just start migrating to 2.2.x.
This no longer seems to be a large file problem, but I'm not
sure what kind of problem it is. Judging by the
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 02:40:13PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:09:12AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 4/15/06, Brandon Fosdick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so has
google. Has any of the large
On 4/15/06, Brandon Fosdick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so has
google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into 2.0.x?
Will it ever?
Different answer than you got before, but I think this is more accurate
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:09:12AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 4/15/06, Brandon Fosdick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so has
google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into 2.0.x?
Will it ever?
Different
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
I haven't tried files that size, but that's far too small for
LARGE_FILE to
be relevant. I guess you knew that already, so does something else
lead you to suppose you're hitting an Apache limit?
It does seem like a rather small and arbitrary limit. I
Paul Querna wrote:
Is there a specific reason you can't use 2.2.x?
AAA screwiness. I ended up writing a custom auth module for 2.0.x, and last
time I looked at porting it to 2.2.x my head nearly exploded. And, it seemed
like there were still some changes in the works. Has all of that settled
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Actually, not entirely true. There is some chewy goodness now in 2.0.x,
such as log files which can grow beyond 2GB, from an APR 0.9 APR_LARGE_FILE
hack. It's a gross hack, which means we can't really provide all sorts of
large file manipulations, but logging, for
hmmm...that doesn't help me much. I'm more interested in large files in
mod_dav. Right now I can't upload anything much bigger than 700MB.
IMO, that's not something a webserver should be used for anyway.
Joost
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:28:10PM +0200, Joost de Heer wrote:
hmmm...that doesn't help me much. I'm more interested in large files in
mod_dav. Right now I can't upload anything much bigger than 700MB.
IMO, that's not something a webserver should be used for anyway.
I do it all of the time.
On Sunday 16 April 2006 20:41, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Actually, not entirely true. There is some chewy goodness now in 2.0.x,
such as log files which can grow beyond 2GB, from an APR 0.9
APR_LARGE_FILE hack. It's a gross hack, which means we can't really
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:28:10PM +0200, Joost de Heer wrote:
hmmm...that doesn't help me much. I'm more interested in large files in
mod_dav. Right now I can't upload anything much bigger than 700MB.
IMO, that's not something a webserver should be used for anyway.
On 4/16/06, Joost de Heer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:28:10PM +0200, Joost de Heer wrote:
hmmm...that doesn't help me much. I'm more interested in large files in
mod_dav. Right now I can't upload anything much bigger than 700MB.
IMO, that's
Nick Kew wrote:
I haven't tried files that size, but that's far too small for LARGE_FILE to
be relevant. I guess you knew that already, so does something else
lead you to suppose you're hitting an Apache limit?
It does seem like a rather small and arbitrary limit. I can't think of what
else
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so has
google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into 2.0.x? Will
it ever?
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so
has google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into
2.0.x?
no.
Will it ever?
no.
Several of the things require APR 1.x, and some of them break binary
compat. They will never
Paul Querna wrote:
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so
has google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into
2.0.x?
no.
Actually, not entirely true. There is some chewy goodness now in 2.0.x,
such as log files
18 matches
Mail list logo
