My system have very specific needs to upload really large files sometimes. My upload limit is actually 400MB, but I've received a request to raise this value to 2GB.
I'm using AOLServer 4.5.1 and I know this is based on ns_limits command. So, I used the following piece of code to raise the upload size:
set max_file_upload_mb 2500 set size [expr $max_file_upload_mb * 1024 * 1024] ns_limits set default -maxupload $size
*maxupload* had a negative size! I started digging up in C source code from AOLServer, and I guess I've found the problem. In the file nsd/limits.c we have the following piece of code:
case LCUploadIdx: limitsPtr->maxupload = val; break;
} }
It seems like *maxupload* receives the value from *val*, wich is an int var. If I'm not wrong, the maximum value for C int vars is 2,147,483,647, and I was trying to setup this value to 2,621,440,000, wich seems to be causing an overflow.
Considering all this, if I just change the line below everything should work, right?
int i, val;
I could just use:
int i; bigint val;
Did I say something wrong or this line of thinking make any sense?
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
You could set the max upload value to INT_MAX (2^31-1, as you have below), and that should work, but going higher will be difficult. Simply changing the variable to a long in one place is insufficient, because that value is handled in quite a few places, and you'd need to change all of them; the obvious one is the Limits structure referenced in the code snippet you have, but there's also buffer sizes and scanf formats (to read the upload size from the http request) to handle, and probably a few others as well.
> My system have very specific needs to upload really large files > sometimes. My upload limit is actually 400MB, but I've received a > request to raise this value to 2GB.
> I'm using AOLServer 4.5.1 and I know this is based on ns_limits command. > So, I used the following piece of code to raise the upload size:
> set max_file_upload_mb 2500 > set size [expr $max_file_upload_mb * 1024 * 1024] > ns_limits set default -maxupload $size
> However, the response was completely unexpected:
> /maxupload/ had a negative size! I started digging up in C source code > from AOLServer, and I guess I've found the problem. In the file > nsd/limits.c we have the following piece of code:
> case LCUploadIdx: > limitsPtr->maxupload = val; > break;
> } > }
> It seems like /maxupload/ receives the value from /val/, wich is an int > var. If I'm not wrong, the maximum value for C int vars > is 2,147,483,647, and I was trying to setup this value to 2,621,440,000, > wich seems to be causing an overflow.
> Considering all this, if I just change the line below everything should > work, right?
> int i, val;
> I could just use:
> int i; > bigint val;
> Did I say something wrong or this line of thinking make any sense?
> To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to > <lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the > email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Thank you for the answer. I was thiking that such a problem really exists, and that's why I decided not to touch the source code on this.
It seems to me a bad thing to have a such low limit for file uploads. As I don't know this implementation, do you think there's any other way we can increase the file upload limit?
> You could set the max upload value to INT_MAX (2^31-1, as you have below), > and that should work, but going higher will be difficult. Simply changing > the variable to a long in one place is insufficient, because that value is > handled in quite a few places, and you'd need to change all of them; the > obvious one is the Limits structure referenced in the code snippet you have, > but there's also buffer sizes and scanf formats (to read the upload size > from the http request) to handle, and probably a few others as well.
> -J
> Eduardo Santos wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>> My system have very specific needs to upload really large files >> sometimes. My upload limit is actually 400MB, but I've received a >> request to raise this value to 2GB.
>> I'm using AOLServer 4.5.1 and I know this is based on ns_limits command. >> So, I used the following piece of code to raise the upload size:
>> set max_file_upload_mb 2500 >> set size [expr $max_file_upload_mb * 1024 * 1024] >> ns_limits set default -maxupload $size
>> However, the response was completely unexpected:
>> /maxupload/ had a negative size! I started digging up in C source code >> from AOLServer, and I guess I've found the problem. In the file >> nsd/limits.c we have the following piece of code:
>> case LCUploadIdx: >> limitsPtr->maxupload = val; >> break;
>> } >> }
>> It seems like /maxupload/ receives the value from /val/, wich is an int >> var. If I'm not wrong, the maximum value for C int vars >> is 2,147,483,647, and I was trying to setup this value to 2,621,440,000, >> wich seems to be causing an overflow.
>> Considering all this, if I just change the line below everything should >> work, right?
>> int i, val;
>> I could just use:
>> int i; >> bigint val;
>> Did I say something wrong or this line of thinking make any sense?
>> To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to >> <lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the >> email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
> To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to < > lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the > body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the > Subject: field of your email blank.
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
> Thank you for the answer. I was thiking that such a problem really > exists, and that's why I decided not to touch the source code on this.
> It seems to me a bad thing to have a such low limit for file uploads. As > I don't know this implementation, do you think there's any other way we > can increase the file upload limit?
I think someone else was looking at uploading large files last year. The problem they were running into was that unless your link is fast the browser (particularly IE) times out waiting for a response, even though it hasn't finished uploading yet. I would not be surprised if you encounter similar problems.
You (and your users) may find it more pleasant to use a upload tool that automatically breaks the file into multiple parts for uploading, and the server re-combines them after the upload is complete. For example, Plupload appears to support this. http://www.plupload.com/
(I've not used plupload, it was just the first hit I got from a search).
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <lists...@listserv.aol.com> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
