On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Brian Havard wrote: > it dies when the total output exceeds 64k, header+body, not when the > requested file exceeds 64k. Subtle difference but may point to a > completely different cause. Yes, I'd missed that. And yes, you're probably right that it points in a different direction. Actually, that makes me feel better in a way, because it somewhat validates my theory that file_read() is not responsible. Anyway, I'm getting set up to try to duplicate the problem. Will keep you all posted. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Greg Stein
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Greg Stein
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? rbb
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Brian Havard
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? David Reid
- Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12? Cliff Woolley
- canonical stuff (was: Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12?) Greg Stein
