Quoting chithanh: > Verbose build logs are can be several times as large as non-verbose > ones, which can run into our Bugzilla's attachment size limit. When a > user is unable to attach the build.log file, typically one of the > following happens: > > 1. User compresses build.log with a common compressor like gzip, bzip2 > or xz and manually sets the attachment MIME type correctly (best case). > 2. User makes a compressed tarball, containing a single file > 3. User cuts off the build.log somewhere in the middle, supplies the > bottom part > 4. User uploads build.log to a public file hoster or his own private web > server, the link expires / 404s after some time (IMO worst case). Considering that neither of these options are good for us, and nowadays disk space shouldn't be that problematic, I believe we should consider raising the attachment size limit.
Bugzilla presently stores attachments in the database, and we really want to get away from that. When it can store the attachments in a distributed filesystem (with 2 or more copies), then we can open up the size limit a lot more. The distributed part is needed as we run it very clustered with no single points of failure - NFS doesn't cut it for this.
(In reply to comment #1) > Bugzilla presently stores attachments in the database, and we really want to > get away from that. When it can store the attachments in a distributed > filesystem (with 2 or more copies), then we can open up the size limit a lot > more. The distributed part is needed as we run it very clustered with no > single points of failure - NFS doesn't cut it for this. Is there a feature request for Bugzilla for that?
Bugzilla itself can do that already. We just need a fs.
idl0r: Did they get support for an HTTP-based non-POSIX FS like I asked? Specifically looking at MogileFS, because I know I can make it fully redundant and I have significant experience with it.
(In reply to comment #4) > idl0r: Did they get support for an HTTP-based non-POSIX FS like I asked? > Specifically looking at MogileFS, because I know I can make it fully > redundant and I have significant experience with it. Currently it can only store attachments on the disk. There's a option "maxlocalattachment" when >0 it will just store attachments on disk. So we would have to mount that dir.
*** Bug 459616 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Are we going to do this or close as WONTFIX?
