Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
|
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
08-06-2006, 04:04 AM
|
#1
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: In my house.
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Slackware 13.1 64-bit
Posts: 2,649
Rep:
|
Large files and Apache
On a website, I want to have a dvd image to be able to be downloaded (~> 3GB).
However, while the file can be seen on the page, there is no size involved, and I get a 403 forbidden error when trying to access it. However, there are smaller cd iso's on the same page that I can see file sizes on them, and can be downloaded.
Permissions are the same on both types, and were even created by the same program at the approximate same time.
Is there a size limit in Apache the disallows large files? Or what can it be if not that?
|
|
|
08-06-2006, 04:54 AM
|
#2
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: [jax][fl][usa]
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 796
Rep:
|
i think 2.2 is supposed to have large file support...
but why not just use ftp?
|
|
|
08-06-2006, 04:59 AM
|
#3
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: In my house.
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Slackware 13.1 64-bit
Posts: 2,649
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Don't feel like setting it up...lol
Any ideas on how to resolve this w/Apache?
EDIT***
Using version Apache/1.3.36 Server
Last edited by cwwilson721; 08-06-2006 at 05:01 AM.
|
|
|
08-06-2006, 05:15 AM
|
#4
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: [jax][fl][usa]
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 796
Rep:
|
you might be able to make a patch based on the following:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28898
imho, an ftp server would be much easier...
|
|
|
08-06-2006, 05:32 AM
|
#5
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: In my house.
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Slackware 13.1 64-bit
Posts: 2,649
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Thank you for the time and effort to read what I posted.
I do appreciate it.
However, I do have a few issues with your responses: - I have no freakin idea what that link is for. Posting links with no explanation of its use is a waste of my time. I will not do that to others, so please don't do it to me.
- How about ideas on what the issue is (which is the question in my post), and not links to developers bug reports?
- If you know what the issue is, why not just say it? Or is it a secret?
- I already stated earlier in this thread that I am not setting up ftp on that server. END OF THAT DISCUSSION. I tried laughing it off, but you did not take the hint. As I say to my kids, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" While I know that maybe easier, there are other considerations I am not going to discuss on why that is not going to happen.
Whew! Now that I've ranted and vented (Really, not an attack. Just needed to be said.), how about answers to my questions?
I'm assuming that this version of Apache (1.3) has a size tranfer limit?
If so, what are the work arounds?
I don't want answers like "upgrade to.." or "use this server to..".
What workarounds/fixes to Apache 1.3server would allow http transfers of >2GB files (which is the assumed bug)?
Or is it something else?
|
|
|
08-06-2006, 05:45 AM
|
#6
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: [jax][fl][usa]
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 796
Rep:
|
if you are unwilling to change versions
and also unwilling to use ftp (the correct protocol)
then your only choice is to patch the source.
sorry, but i thought that was evident with my
reference to "patch" before the link...and that is
the most relevant information to what you think
you want to do.
my reference to ftp (the correct protocol) again
after you laughed at how lazy you are was only in
regards of comparing the difficulty levels involved.
to sum things up...there is no easy way to "fix" it.
you can either use ftp (the correct protocol), upgrade
your version of apache, or patch the source for 1.3
otherwise you're sol.
|
|
|
08-06-2006, 05:58 AM
|
#7
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: In my house.
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Slackware 13.1 64-bit
Posts: 2,649
Original Poster
Rep:
|
OK. So 1.3 does not allow large transfers.
That simple answer would have saved a little aggravation if it was said first.
That was partially my fault for not putting the version in my first post. For that, I do apologize.
So my basic option is Apache 2.2?
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|