Upload huge file size: "The page cannot be displayed" browser error

[jrefactors]

I have an upload file operation in the web application. UploadForm.jsp
is the form,
and UploadAction.jsp is the form processing. The web server is
Websphere.

//UploadForm.jsp
<FORM NAME="InputForm" ACTION="UploadAction.jsp" METHOD="POST"
enctype=multipart/form-data>
<input type="file" name="fileName">
//etc ...
</FORM>

After I deploy the application to the web server, if I upload a small
file size, it is fine.
But if I upload a huge file size more than 10MB, then it cannot even go
to UploadAction.jsp.
After 30 seconds, it has error "The page cannot be displayed" shown on
the web browser.
It cannot even go to UploadAction.jsp. But both UploadForm.jsp and
UnploadAction.jsp are
in the same machine.

Interestingly, if I test in local machine, I can upload any file size
without problem.
I don't have any hints now. any ideas?
please advise. thanks!!

 

[Ryan Stewart]

[...]

After 30 seconds, it has error "The page cannot be displayed" shown on
the web browser.

[...]
What browser says that? If you're using IE, then either get a real browser
or turn off the "friendly error messages", and come back with a real error
message. Otherwise, look at your logs and find the real error message.

 

[Hogne Titlestad]

Yes. This is a typical Microsoft Internet Explorer message when the page
"expires". It probably tries to redirect to somewhere. Perhaps back so you
can send anew?

Anyhow, this is an explorer issue. If you made the page that gives the
error, then you should change it so that you do not have to go back in
history but rather do a:

document.location = "new_url.html";

Hogne T.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>
, dated Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:27:31, seen in (e-mail address removed) posted :

I have an upload file operation in the web application. UploadForm.jsp
is the form,
and UploadAction.jsp is the form processing. The web server is
Websphere.

Firstly, if you wish to be considered an adept programmer, you should
discover the difference between java and javascript; it's much like the
difference between cat and cattle. See below.

 

[Tom Dyess]

I have an upload file operation in the web application. UploadForm.jsp
is the form,
and UploadAction.jsp is the form processing. The web server is
Websphere.

//UploadForm.jsp
<FORM NAME="InputForm" ACTION="UploadAction.jsp" METHOD="POST"
enctype=multipart/form-data>
<input type="file" name="fileName">
//etc ...
</FORM>

After I deploy the application to the web server, if I upload a small
file size, it is fine.
But if I upload a huge file size more than 10MB, then it cannot even go
to UploadAction.jsp.
After 30 seconds, it has error "The page cannot be displayed" shown on
the web browser.
It cannot even go to UploadAction.jsp. But both UploadForm.jsp and
UnploadAction.jsp are
in the same machine.

Interestingly, if I test in local machine, I can upload any file size
without problem.
I don't have any hints now. any ideas?
please advise. thanks!!

I was curious about this too (just wrote an upload multi-part handler/filter
for HttpRequest) - anyhow, sounds annoying. I found an article on how to
change it on the client, but getting your clients to do this doesn't sound
realistic:

---
When loading a page, IE starts a timer. If the page is not fully loaded at
the end of the timeout, you get an error message and the page stops loading.

The default timeout in IE 4.0 SP2, and IE 5.x is 5 minutes. To alter the
timeout, use Regedt32 to navigate to:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet
Settings

On the Edit menu, Add Value name ReceiveTimeout, as a type REG_DWORD. In the
DWORD Editor, set the Decimal Radix. Enter the timeout in milliseconds.

Example: To set a 6 minute timeout, enter 360000 (6 minutes * 60
Seconds/Minute * 1000 Milliseconds/Second).

You must shutdown and restart your computer for this change to take effect.

 

[Virgil Green]

JRS: In article
<[email protected]> , dated Tue,
4 Jan 2005 20:27:31, seen in (e-mail address removed) posted :


Firstly, if you wish to be considered an adept programmer, you should
discover the difference between java and javascript; it's much like
the difference between cat and cattle. See below.

Perhaps you could enlighten the possibly inept programmers among us as to
where javascript came into this discussion.

- Virgil

 

[jrefactors]

thanks for all your responses. couple comments and need further
advices...

1) This is IE 6.0. so we identify this error is client-side problem?

2) I turn off the "friendly error messages in browser setting, but
still display
"The page cannot be displayed" in the web browser. The problem is I
cannot see any log errors.

3) This is just a simple POST from UploadForm.jsp to UploadAction.jsp,
I don't know why
IE tries to redirect to somewhere. This problem occurs when try to
upload a huge file.
any workarounds to that?

4) I added ReceiveTimeout in regedit, but still the same result.
any ideas? thanks a lot!!

 

[Tom Dyess]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>
, dated Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:27:31, seen in (e-mail address removed) posted :


Firstly, if you wish to be considered an adept programmer, you should
discover the difference between java and javascript; it's much like the
difference between cat and cattle. See below.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. [email protected] Turnpike v4.00 IE 4
©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates,
sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items,
links.

I believe .jsp is a Java Server Pages extension, while .js is a JavaScript
extension.

JS: http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=JS
JSP: http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=JSP

Dr John, unless you want to be considered adept at being a prick AND a dolt,
maybe you should discover the difference between a .js extension and a .jsp
extension before you shoot your condescending mouth off.

 

[Virgil Green]

I believe .jsp is a Java Server Pages extension, while .js is a
JavaScript extension.

JS: http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=JS
JSP: http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=JSP

Dr John, unless you want to be considered adept at being a prick AND
a dolt, maybe you should discover the difference between a .js
extension and a .jsp extension before you shoot your condescending
mouth off.

Tom.... you let him off the hook! I was dangling bait and you snatched the
line away!

- Virgil

 

[Tom Dyess]

Tom.... you let him off the hook! I was dangling bait and you snatched the
line away!

- Virgil

Lol. Sorry, people like that aggravate me. He deserved a thumping.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Dr John Stockton wrote:

Dr John, unless you want to be considered adept at being a
prick AND a dolt, maybe you should discover the difference
between a .js extension and a .jsp extension before you
shoot your condescending mouth off.

When a question that appears to have nothing to do with javascript what
so ever is cross-posted to comp.lang.javascript there is an implication
that whoever cross-posted it has a misconception about the relationship
between javascript and the other technologies involved (Java/JSP
probably being the object of that misconception). It does not seem
unreasonable to encourage people to acquire sufficient understanding to
avoid posting questions to groups where their subject is off topic.

Incidentally, .js extensions on javascript URLs, and .jsp extensions on
Java Server Page URLs are completely arbitrary (merely conventions
and/or defaults) so there isn't really any difference between them.

Richard.

 

[Tom Dyess]

When a question that appears to have nothing to do with javascript what
so ever is cross-posted to comp.lang.javascript there is an implication
that whoever cross-posted it has a misconception about the relationship
between javascript and the other technologies involved (Java/JSP
probably being the object of that misconception). It does not seem
unreasonable to encourage people to acquire sufficient understanding to
avoid posting questions to groups where their subject is off topic.

Incidentally, .js extensions on javascript URLs, and .jsp extensions on
Java Server Page URLs are completely arbitrary (merely conventions
and/or defaults) so there isn't really any difference between them.

Richard.

Cmon Richard, you're trying to justify this guy being a prick.

1. Very well known and standard convention is .jsp being a Java Server Pages
extension and .js a JavaScript extension. If I asked you what a .jsp file
was, most likely you would say something to the effect of, "probably a JSP
file," especially if you were implying you were an adept programmer like Dr
John did.

2. I didn't notice the cross reference before. I agree that it does not seem
unreasonable to encourage people to acquire bla bla.

3. It does seem unreasonable that he has to be a condescending prick about
it. I mean, why attempt to embarass someone asking for help. He didn't have
to reply; he went out of his way to be a prick, so I called him on it. I'm
going to boast a bit, but I'll bet if I conjure up enough creative juices, I
could be much better of a prick than he! Lol.

 

[Virgil Green]

When a question that appears to have nothing to do with javascript
what so ever is cross-posted to comp.lang.javascript there is an
implication that whoever cross-posted it has a misconception about
the relationship between javascript and the other technologies
involved (Java/JSP probably being the object of that misconception).
It does not seem unreasonable to encourage people to acquire
sufficient understanding to avoid posting questions to groups where
their subject is off topic.

Actually, it just looks like he hit all the newsgroups that were likely to
have experienced web developers in them. Given the nature of his question,
I'd say that has a higher correlation than does the "I don't know the
difference between java and javascript" theory.

- Virgil

- Virgil

 

[Zifud]

Tom Dyess wrote:
[...]

Dr John, unless you want to be considered adept at being a prick AND a dolt,
maybe you should discover the difference between a .js extension and a .jsp
extension before you shoot your condescending mouth off.

Then why is this posted to comp.lang.javascript at all?

 

[rf]

Tom Dyess wrote:
[...]

Dr John, unless you want to be considered adept at being a prick AND a dolt,
maybe you should discover the difference between a .js extension and a ..jsp
extension before you shoot your condescending mouth off.

Then why is this posted to comp.lang.javascript at all?

And why to alt.html. And why was it posted three times over a two day
period?

 

[Richard Cornford]

Cmon Richard, you're trying to justify this guy being a prick.

I was doing no more than pointing out that observing a question that has
no apparent relationship to the javascript programming language, but
posted to a javascript newsgroup, and reacting by pointing out that
there is no relationship between Java and javascript beyond a sequence
of characters in the names of each, is not unreasonable.

Unfortunately it is also not uncommonly necessary, so it is not that
surprising that such reactions should be terse. And it is also such a
rudimentary error (for a web developer) that it is not surprising that
such reactions should be less than polite (even ignoring the
demonstrated disregard for the Usenet convention of reading a group's
FAQ prior to posting questions to that group; where the appropriateness
of Java related questions on comp.lang.javascript is suitably
explained).

... . If I asked you what a .jsp file was, most likely you
would say something to the effect of, "probably a JSP file,"

I am capable of being (and inclined to be) much more precise than that,
and likely to be influenced in my response by the context in which the
question was asked.

especially if you were implying you
were an adept programmer like Dr John did.

Did he imply I was an adept programmer? I entirely missed that.

2. I didn't notice the cross reference before. ...

<snip>

That was my assumption.

3. It does seem unreasonable that he has to be a condescending
prick about it.

You perceived condescension, within the cultural vagaries of the use of
English worldwide, and responded with unambiguous personal abuse? You
have no moral high ground.

I mean, why attempt to embarass someone asking for help.

1. So they can avoid the need to embarrass themselves again.
2. To avoid any recurrence of off topic postings from the individual
concerned.

... I'm going to boast a bit, but I'll bet if I conjure
up enough creative juices, I could be much better of
a prick than he! Lol.

No boasting necessarily, I am already convinced of you abilities in that
area..

Richard.

 

[Randy Webb]

Perhaps you could enlighten the possibly inept programmers among us as to
where javascript came into this discussion.

Considering that its cross-posted to alt.html, comp.lang.javascript and
comp.lang.java.programmer, do you need anyone to explain where
Javascript came into the discussion?

 

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in comp.lang.java.programmer,alt.html,comp.lang.javascript,

Perhaps you could enlighten the possibly inept programmers among us as to
where javascript came into this discussion.

That would be in the headers, where it was crossposted to
comp.lang.javascript (among others).

 

[Tom Dyess]

I was doing no more than pointing out that observing a question that has
no apparent relationship to the javascript programming language, but
posted to a javascript newsgroup, and reacting by pointing out that
there is no relationship between Java and javascript beyond a sequence
of characters in the names of each, is not unreasonable.

"relationship to the javascript programming language." You've got to be
kidding me. Do you think that explaining something using formal nomenclature
makes it a more valid point? Why didn't you just type "Java?" How were you
trying to present yourself? Lol. If you are going to discuss something,
discuss the issue. Don't skirt around it with million dollar words with no
meaning, and if you are going to do it, don't use five dollar words. (that's
an analogy, folks!) People with half a brain see right through it. Let me
ask you this: did you not think he was being a prick? Do you think he could
have been more diplomatic? Yes or no only please.

Unfortunately it is also not uncommonly necessary, so it is not that
surprising that such reactions should be terse. And it is also such a
rudimentary error (for a web developer) that it is not surprising that
such reactions should be less than polite (even ignoring the
demonstrated disregard for the Usenet convention of reading a group's
FAQ prior to posting questions to that group; where the appropriateness
of Java related questions on comp.lang.javascript is suitably
explained).

Bla bla bla. No excuse to be a prick, life is too hard. People piss me off
every day, but I treat most with respect.

I am capable of being (and inclined to be) much more precise than that,
and likely to be influenced in my response by the context in which the
question was asked.

Too bad you were incapable of being direct on that response. It much more
valuable. Ok, humor me, if someone new to Java asked you what a .jsp file
was, how would you respond? 100 words maximum please.

Did he imply I was an adept programmer? I entirely missed that.

It was an implied "you" meaning "one." Sorry, I should have said "especially
if one were implying that one was an adept programmer." Incase you are still
having trouble, the pronoun, "one" means Dr. John, not you meaning Richard.
Sheesh. Didn't think I had to spell it out, I mean this is a programmer's
forum for Christ's sake. Don't pretend to be obtuse.

<snip>

That was my assumption.

That was correct! No argument here. Still no reason for Dr. John to be a
prick.

You perceived condescension, within the cultural vagaries of the use of
English worldwide, and responded with unambiguous personal abuse? You
have no moral high ground.

**** you. Hows that for moral high ground?. He attacked someone, I defended
them by attacking him back. I don't like bullies. You defended the attacker.
What does that make you? I no longer believe you are in any position to
judge my moral high ground.

1. So they can avoid the need to embarrass themselves again.
2. To avoid any recurrence of off topic postings from the individual
concerned.

I'm assuming you agree with his position, otherwise I wouldn't say this. Do
you beat your kids for spilling milk? He should show some fucking restraint
and discipline. Maybe learn some cordiality. Maybe the guy's new. Ever think
Dr. John should instruct him on where the FAQ's are or at the very least
shut the **** up? No, someone looking for help makes a mistake, Dr. John is
more than eager to rapes his ass and you are behind him waiting your turn.
What the ****?

No boasting necessarily, I am already convinced of you abilities in that
area..

You have no idea. Lol.

Richard.

With everloving regards,

Tom

 

[Tom Dyess]

I was doing no more than pointing out that observing a question that has
no apparent relationship to the javascript programming language, but
posted to a javascript newsgroup, and reacting by pointing out that
there is no relationship between Java and javascript beyond a sequence
of characters in the names of each, is not unreasonable.

"relationship to the javascript programming language." You've got to be
kidding me. Do you think that explaining something using formal nomenclature
makes it a more valid point? Why didn't you just type "Java?" How were you
trying to present yourself? Lol. If you are going to discuss something,
discuss the issue. Don't skirt around it with million dollar words with no
meaning, and if you are going to do it, don't use five dollar words. (that's
an analogy, folks!) People with half a brain (like me? maybe. Lol. Beat you
to it.) see right through it. Let me
ask you this: did you not think he was being a prick? Do you think he could
have been more diplomatic? Yes or no only please.

Unfortunately it is also not uncommonly necessary, so it is not that
surprising that such reactions should be terse. And it is also such a
rudimentary error (for a web developer) that it is not surprising that
such reactions should be less than polite (even ignoring the
demonstrated disregard for the Usenet convention of reading a group's
FAQ prior to posting questions to that group; where the appropriateness
of Java related questions on comp.lang.javascript is suitably
explained).

Bla bla bla. No excuse to be a prick, life is too hard. People piss me off
every day, but I treat most with respect. There is a differense between
being terse or kurt and being a prick. Terse is quick and to the point,
being a prick doesn't accomplish anything productive.

Terse: Please don't post java questions in the javascript newsgroups.
Prick: Bla bla if you aspire to being an adept programmer, bla bla I'm so
smart, you're so stoooopid.

I am capable of being (and inclined to be) much more precise than that,
and likely to be influenced in my response by the context in which the
question was asked.

Too bad you were incapable of being direct on that response. It much more
valuable. What's wrong with the context in which I asked it? Ok, humor me,
if someone new to Java asked you what a .jsp file
was, how would you respond? 100 words maximum please. Do I need to provide a
setting as well?

Did he imply I was an adept programmer? I entirely missed that.

It was an implied "you" meaning "one." Sorry, I should have said "especially
if one were implying that one was an adept programmer." Incase you are still
having trouble, the pronoun, "one" means Dr. John, not you, meaning Richard.
Sheesh. Didn't think I had to spell it out, I mean this is a programmer's
forum for Christ's sake. Don't pretend to be obtuse to make a point, the
value of "one's" character it isn't worth it.

<snip>

That was my assumption.

That was correct! No argument here. Still no reason for Dr. John to be a
prick.

You perceived condescension, within the cultural vagaries of the use of
English worldwide, and responded with unambiguous personal abuse? You
have no moral high ground.

**** you. Hows that for moral high ground?. He attacked someone, I defended
them by attacking him back. I don't like bullies. You defended the attacker.
What does that make you? I no longer believe you are in any position to
judge my moral high ground.

1. So they can avoid the need to embarrass themselves again.
2. To avoid any recurrence of off topic postings from the individual
concerned.

I'm assuming you agree with his position, otherwise I wouldn't say this. Do
you beat your kids for spilling milk? He should show some fucking restraint
and discipline. Maybe learn some cordiality. Maybe the guy's new. Ever think
Dr. John should instruct him on where the FAQ's are or at the very least
shut the **** up? No, someone looking for help makes a mistake, Dr. John is
more than eager to rape his ass and you are behind him waiting your turn.
What the ****?

No boasting necessarily, I am already convinced of you abilities in that
area..

You have no idea. Lol.

Richard.

With everloving regards,

Tom