atom feed29 messages in ru.sysoev.nginxRe: HTTP PUT for file uploads
FromSent OnAttachments
mikeJul 31, 2008 4:47 pm 
Phillip B OldhamAug 1, 2008 5:10 am 
MichaelAug 1, 2008 7:05 am 
Phillip B OldhamAug 1, 2008 7:16 am 
MichaelAug 1, 2008 7:51 am 
Mike MikeAug 2, 2008 4:15 am 
MichaelAug 2, 2008 6:49 am 
mikeAug 2, 2008 11:07 am 
mikeAug 2, 2008 11:12 am 
mikeAug 2, 2008 11:43 am 
MichaelAug 2, 2008 12:59 pm 
mikeAug 2, 2008 1:14 pm 
Phillip B OldhamAug 4, 2008 1:30 am 
mikeAug 4, 2008 1:38 am 
MichaelAug 4, 2008 4:54 am 
mikeAug 4, 2008 9:51 am 
Brian MoranSep 5, 2008 11:33 pm 
mikeSep 5, 2008 11:48 pm 
Valery KholodkovSep 6, 2008 4:44 am 
Kon WilmsSep 6, 2008 8:35 am 
mikeSep 6, 2008 2:14 pm 
mikeSep 6, 2008 2:16 pm 
mikeSep 8, 2008 2:12 pm 
Grzegorz NosekSep 9, 2008 12:43 am 
mikeSep 9, 2008 1:19 am 
Phillip B OldhamSep 9, 2008 1:37 am 
mikeSep 9, 2008 2:26 am 
Kon WilmsSep 9, 2008 8:31 am 
mikeSep 9, 2008 12:41 pm 
Subject:Re: HTTP PUT for file uploads
From:Michael (ngin@public.gmane.org)
Date:Aug 1, 2008 7:51:48 am
List:ru.sysoev.nginx

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 15:17:20, Phillip B Oldham said...

Exactly - 2GB is going to be hell to upload. At least with FTP it can use multiple ports for data transfer. And with a web interface I'd expect users to get annoyed with clicking "back" accidentally or having their email-client open a link using the same window. With FTP you can "background" the process.

Yeah, users would do something like that... I wonder how youtube deals with it? Those uploads take a loooong time.. do users get frustrated and abort the transfer?

Handling the upload in a web server or backend application wouldn't be hard at all though, it's mostly just handling the user that's the problem.

As for firewalls; just use an active connection rather than passive. Job done. You'll loose the benefit of the different ports, though.

There's more to it than that... but again, not nginx related.