Large attachments

Dave Williss dwilliss at
Fri Jul 15 14:29:07 UTC 2005

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Myk Melez
To: developers at
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Large attachments

> Right.  And we should make it clear that we don't recommend that Bugzilla
> installations use this feature, since it adds a dependency on the 
> filesystem
> that imposes limits on your use of Bugzilla.  In particular, you can't 
> easily
> increase Bugzilla capacity by setting up a second instance of the app, 
> since
> you then have to share a filesystem, which is harder than sharing a 
> database.

I would have to disagree here.  Sharing a filesystem on Unix is pretty easy.
I've never tried to share a database, but it didn't seem easy. Of course 
may just be the learning curve.  Once you know how to, it may be easy.

> Of course, the feature is the only workable solution for attachments 
> greater
> than 16MB in size on MySQL 3.23, which imposes that limit on the size
> of communication packets.  But MySQL 4.0.1+ accept packets up to
> 1GB in size, and 2.22 will require MySQL 4.0.2+, so perhaps this feature
> is no longer necessary and can be removed in 2.22.

In our industry (GIS), it is not uncommon these days for datasets to reach
several hunderd Megabytes, with multi-gigabyte datasets from time to time.
Keeping track of these as in Bugzilla as attachments won't work for obvious

What we've been doing is placing them on a shared drive on our fileserver in
a directory named errdata, with the subdirectory for each bug (named using
the submitters initials (out of tradition from our pre-bugzill days) 
followed by
the bugzilla id).  The only thing we put as attachments are things like

I wrote a script that fires off via cron every night which looks for bugs 
have been closed for 14 days or more which still have data in errdata and
delete it to keep from accumulating old data.

I'd like to be able to manage this errdata directory via bugzilla, but I 
doing so in a general way is impractical.

> Thoughts?

> -myk

Daniel Berlin wrote:
If you tell it to, yes (IE you have to explicitly turn this on)

If not, no.
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:49 -0400, Jason Pyeron wrote:

2.19.3 litters the file system?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Benton, Kevin wrote:

That's actually been implemented in 2.19.3 if that helps

To view or change your list settings, click here:
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "" 
claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 
"" claiming to be 


More information about the developers mailing list