It is not Enteprise if it chokes on 300mb! (though uploading files of this size is not ideal - but may be necessary)
"This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Oriel House, 26 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DL, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions." Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CF-Server <[email protected]> Sent: Wed Dec 07 04:57:43 2005 Subject: RE: using java class files > To add, uploading a 300mb file does not mean that 300mb of > RAM is used! If that was the case there would be no such > things as enterprise CMS tool - "ooh I'm sorry you cannot > upload an image to the CMS, someone else is.." > > A file is just uploaded by http/ftp - bit by bit. IIS does > not hold it in memory per se. There are two problems with this analysis. First, most enterprise CMSs will choke on 300 MB image file uploads. Second, IIS doesn't have anything to do with this, as far as I can tell. CF integrates with IIS 5 through an ISAPI filter and an ISAPI extension, and with IIS 6 through an ISAPI wildcard extension. I'm not fully up on IIS 6 ISAPI, but with IIS 5 at least, a filter processes the request before IIS does anything. The filter code is entirely written by MM folks. So the real question is, does CF hold the entire HTTP POST request body in memory before writing to disk, or does it create a memory-mapped file when it receives a large enough POST. I don't know the answer to this question offhand, but maybe someone else does. > It is not held in memory of the server - that would be > utterly pointless and unworkable. I would argue that allowing HTTP POSTs of 300+ MB is utterly pointless and unworkable, for what that's worth. > Look at it this way - I you download a file to your HD which > is 1GB and you only have 500mb of RAM does your download fail? > Of course not, it is not based on memory. You are relying on common sense, which is a big mistake. I wouldn't be at all surprised if HTTP POSTs are stored in memory rather than in the filesystem. Writing a program which handles different HTTP POSTs differently is more difficult than writing one which works the same way no matter what. Browsers, on the other hand, write every file they download to the filesystem, so it makes sense that they would handle large file downloads the same as small file downloads. But in any case, you shouldn't make assumptions about this sort of stuff, because common sense rarely applies in these cases. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:10:5761 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/10 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:10 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.10 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
