On 11/15/2010 3:43 AM, Steven Simpson wrote: > > I intend to have a CGI program extract a form field and deliver this > data to an external system, but the field in question is likely to be > huge. The server can't invoke the program until it knows the length of > the request body, in order to set CONTENT_LENGTH in the program's > environment. If the POST doesn't include a Content-Length field, the > server will have to buffer the entire contents somewhere. Can it deal > with huge message bodies, such as those exceeding virtual RAM, by saving > to disc (for example)? > > How does FastCGI/fcgid compare? Will it handle huge POSTs any better? > My cursory reading of the FastCGI spec suggests that it doesn't have to > know the content length to deliver it, because it is sent in chunks. This is really a flaw in your CGI; it should read to end of stream (httpd will mark that stream EOF when it's complete under either cgi or fastcgi) and if it wants to read it all into memory (hopefully with some limits imposed based on realistic expectations) then it's free to buffer. httpd will avoid buffering entirely, whenever it is possible. It isn't httpd's job to be buffering as a developer convenience. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|