|
Home > Archive > WebSphere HTTP Server > March 2005 > IBM HTTP Server 1.3.19 Large File Download Problem
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
IBM HTTP Server 1.3.19 Large File Download Problem
|
|
| Robert Reed 2005-02-24, 8:48 pm |
| My company is using IBM HTTP Server 1.3.19 on a Windows 2000 server. We
are able to download files from this server via HTTP up to about 450 MB.
Files larger than this do not download completely. We can download only
a portion of the file before the transfer ends.
Is anyone aware of a problem in this version of the HTTP Server
associated with large file downloads???
Bob Reed
| |
| Sunit Patke 2005-02-25, 6:03 pm |
| Can you set the loglevel to debug and post error_log?
Sunit
"Robert Reed" <rreed2000@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:20050224210202502-0500@news.software.ibm.com...
> My company is using IBM HTTP Server 1.3.19 on a Windows 2000 server. We
> are able to download files from this server via HTTP up to about 450 MB.
> Files larger than this do not download completely. We can download only
> a portion of the file before the transfer ends.
>
> Is anyone aware of a problem in this version of the HTTP Server
> associated with large file downloads???
>
> Bob Reed
| |
| Jorge Jarpa 2005-02-28, 5:58 pm |
| Hi,
HTTP aparently was not designed to download files too big, that?s why it?s
lag in performance.
Solutions:
Split file in little peaces with "hjsplit for DOS", then transfer them, you
can program a simple batch file for automatization; other way is to attach a
secondary Etherneth card and use a crosswire patch cord to communicate with
the other equipment, this one will provide you 500 Mb/Min. transfer rate.
I used the second solution to download the Access.log file each end of
month, to be analized with Stadistic Software.
Regards,
Eng. Jorge Jarpa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Reed" <rreed2000@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:20050224210202502-0500@news.software.ibm.com...
> My company is using IBM HTTP Server 1.3.19 on a Windows 2000 server. We
> are able to download files from this server via HTTP up to about 450 MB.
> Files larger than this do not download completely. We can download only
> a portion of the file before the transfer ends.
>
> Is anyone aware of a problem in this version of the HTTP Server
> associated with large file downloads???
>
> Bob Reed
| |
| Ray McVay 2005-02-28, 8:51 pm |
| People download full ISO CD images over HTTP all the time so it's not
simply a protocol problem.
Jorge Jarpa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> HTTP aparently was not designed to download files too big, that?s why it?s
> lag in performance.
>
> Solutions:
> Split file in little peaces with "hjsplit for DOS", then transfer them, you
> can program a simple batch file for automatization; other way is to attach a
> secondary Etherneth card and use a crosswire patch cord to communicate with
> the other equipment, this one will provide you 500 Mb/Min. transfer rate.
>
> I used the second solution to download the Access.log file each end of
> month, to be analized with Stadistic Software.
>
>
> Regards,
> Eng. Jorge Jarpa
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Robert Reed" <rreed2000@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:20050224210202502-0500@news.software.ibm.com...
>
>
>
>
| |
| Ray McVay 2005-02-28, 8:51 pm |
| How many different browsers have you tested on this?
Robert Reed wrote:
> My company is using IBM HTTP Server 1.3.19 on a Windows 2000 server. We
> are able to download files from this server via HTTP up to about 450 MB.
> Files larger than this do not download completely. We can download only
> a portion of the file before the transfer ends.
>
> Is anyone aware of a problem in this version of the HTTP Server
> associated with large file downloads???
>
> Bob Reed
| |
| Jorge Jarpa 2005-03-03, 6:00 pm |
| You are right Ray, I also had that experience ...
Robert, is there a firewall between you and the server from where you are
downloading ?
The firewall could be introducing delay.
Regards,
Jorge.
"Ray McVay" <raymmailbox-news@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d00fub$6fc2$2@news.boulder.ibm.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> How many different browsers have you tested on this?
>
> Robert Reed wrote:
| |
|
| Actually, no there isn't a firewall between the workstation and the server. What we have found is that when we disable the AFPA module, the problem goes away - but downloads are painfully slow.
Some documentation we found online indicates that AFPA uses a maximum of 25% of the installed memory. We have 2 GB of RAM in the server, so the download dies at around 500MB.
IBM tech support hasn't been terrible helpful in providing a workaround. They said that there is a known problem with AFPA and Norton Antivirus, but we've disabled NAV and the problem still persists until we disable AFPA.
Has anyone else run into this?
Bob
quote:
Originally posted by Jorge Jarpa
You are right Ray, I also had that experience ...
Robert, is there a firewall between you and the server from where you are
downloading ?
The firewall could be introducing delay.
Regards,
Jorge.
"Ray McVay" <raymmailbox-news@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d00fub$6fc2$2@news.boulder.ibm.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> How many different browsers have you tested on this?
>
> Robert Reed wrote:
| |
|
| I should also note that this problem occurs on all browsers - both on PC and Mac workstations.
quote:
Originally posted by rreed
Actually, no there isn't a firewall between the workstation and the server. What we have found is that when we disable the AFPA module, the problem goes away - but downloads are painfully slow.
Some documentation we found online indicates that AFPA uses a maximum of 25% of the installed memory. We have 2 GB of RAM in the server, so the download dies at around 500MB.
IBM tech support hasn't been terrible helpful in providing a workaround. They said that there is a known problem with AFPA and Norton Antivirus, but we've disabled NAV and the problem still persists until we disable AFPA.
Has anyone else run into this?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|