Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:36, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> Steve Simon wrote:
>>> Many appologies if this is not the correct place to ask about
>>> svn's dav support, if so please rediect me.
>>> AS per the subject, SVN's WebDAV server does not seem to
>>> be honouring partial HTTP GETs even though it appears to
>>> offer the facility with
>>> Accept-Range: bytes
>>> Would you expect svn to support partial gets? Is SVN likely to support
>>> partial GETs in the future?
>> I wouldn't expect that support to exist today because Subversion's clients
>> don't require it (and that's really the driver for most of our server-side
>> features). Is it likely to grow that support in the future? Only if
>> someone writes the code. We've no reason to reject that enhancement, but
>> (again, because Subversion clients don't make use of the functionality) also
>> no compelling reason to prioritize it highly.
> Apache itself should be handling the ranged-GET operation. IOW, we
> shouldn't have to do anything. So maybe we broke Apache's range
Apache doesn't pass along the range information to the content provider?
That seems rather inefficient, requiring that providers deliver the full
contents just so Apache can ignore some/most of them. Weird, but ultimately
Glancing through the Apache sources, I'm guessing that byterange_filter.c is
the relevant code here. That filter has this comment:
/* Don't attempt to do byte range work if this brigade doesn't
* contain an EOS, or if any of the buckets has an unknown length;
* this avoids the cases where it is expensive to perform
* byteranging (i.e. may require arbitrary amounts of memory). */
I wonder if perhaps mod_dav_svn is creating naughty buckets?
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2010-03-30 21:14:27 CEST