-
1. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 2, 2005 7:01 PM (in response to jeff87)The problem was only as far as I could tell on output from POP...It it is working now then that is a good thing. Make sure... I thout it was like a K vs octets thing.
-
2. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
jeff87 Oct 2, 2005 7:23 PM (in response to jeff87)OK. I was using the M3 code. I'll grab the latest from HEAD and try it again and see if I notice that bug there.
-
3. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 2, 2005 7:25 PM (in response to jeff87)I'm pretty sure that was with M3.... I'd go to the next one and mark it unreproducable if you can't reproduce it. However send yourself a good 10mb file first and see if it doesn't think its 100mb.
-
4. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
jeff87 Oct 2, 2005 9:03 PM (in response to jeff87)With larger files, I am starting to see a difference. I attached three files that added up to 11 MB and the reported size was 15 MB. However, when I try just one 10 MB file; I get "org.jboss.mail.store.StoreException: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space". Anyway, I'll keep working on it and try to get a fix submitted soon.
-
5. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 2, 2005 9:07 PM (in response to jeff87)Well for the out of memory just increase your heap with -Xmx. Thats cause you're using hypersonic which keeps it all in memory. Maybe switch to postgresql or mysql.
-
6. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
jeff87 Oct 2, 2005 9:09 PM (in response to jeff87)Yep, so I was able to send that file 10,370 KB and no text in the body. It came back with a reported size of 14,211 KB.
-
7. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 3, 2005 1:08 AM (in response to jeff87)I've actually had T-bird tell me I ddin't have enough room on disk (I had multiple gigs and the mail certainly wasn't that big)...
-
8. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
mikezzz Oct 3, 2005 4:27 AM (in response to jeff87)I was able to send that file 10,370 KB and no text in the body. It came back with a reported size of 14,211 KB.
Remember attachments are Base64 encoded so the size of a file and size of the same file attached to an email will be different. Base64 is not a paricularly efficient encoding. I have seen mail sizes double with certain attachments. It's the base64 encoded size that we are interested in.
Mike. -
9. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
jeff87 Oct 3, 2005 9:34 AM (in response to jeff87)Does that size difference seem reasonable then? Maybe this isn't a problem? I'll work on getting the latest code from HEAD running and send that same file again and compare.
-
10. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 3, 2005 9:37 AM (in response to jeff87)The differential I saw was a much higher order of magnitude. It is possible that it is fixed or that it was an isolated incident or something. IF it can't be replicated, it can't be replicated
-
11. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
mikezzz Oct 3, 2005 3:58 PM (in response to jeff87)A JUnit could be written to test this. Use the ristretto library to connect to JBMail via POP. Do a list to get the size of the email, then run RETR and count the number of octets/bytes recieved. If the count matches the reported size then we are okay.
Mike. -
12. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 3, 2005 4:25 PM (in response to jeff87)Sounds like a good idea....
-
13. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
jeff87 Oct 4, 2005 9:49 AM (in response to jeff87)Sounds good. I'll work on a JUnit for that. I see in another post that we are upgrading the version of ristretto this weekend. Should I wait on this until that is checked in or will it not affect what I need to do?
Jeff -
14. Re: Issue JBMAIL-102
acoliver Oct 4, 2005 9:55 AM (in response to jeff87)Uhh so like if upgrading ristretto is what is required to make CVS work again...I'll be doing it now... No need to wait anyhow.