| Summary: | Please consider increasing the bugzilla attachment size limit | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Infrastructure | Reporter: | Michał Górny <mgorny> |
| Component: | Bugzilla | Assignee: | Bugzilla Admins <bugzilla> |
| Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | phajdan.jr |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
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? |
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.