DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39807>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39807 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 09:19 ------- I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the server should either handle this situation correctly or at least fail gracefully without attempting to eat all your RAM. It would be possible to handle this quite correctly by storing an "insanely large file" in a bucket with unknown length. This could be done either as a modification to the file bucket or, I suppose, as a new bucket type. httpd could handle such a bucket without problems; apr_brigade_insert_file could do whatever is necessary to insert it. But I'm not entirely convinced it would be worth all the effort to fix this properly unless someone really wants to serve insanely large files with 32-bit httpd binaries. By my calculations apr_brigade_file_insert() will be using 36Mb of RAM in bucket structures per petabyte of file. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
