Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upload offloading without the nginx upload module #5536

Closed
natefoo opened this issue Feb 14, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Upload offloading without the nginx upload module #5536

natefoo opened this issue Feb 14, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@natefoo
Copy link
Member

natefoo commented Feb 14, 2018

Maintaining nginx packages to include it is a bit of a pain, the module is barely maintained, and it appears to break http/2. Ideally the alternative would be supported on Apache as well. The most important feature needed is the ability to restart Galaxy without breaking in-progress uploads. Performance is a secondary benefit.

Chunking (#573, #5516) partially fixes this since it would add retry support. But keeping it external to Galaxy still has additional benefits.

One possibility would be to find (if one exists) or write a very simple server that largely does what the upload module does, that we could launch independently of Galaxy. Non-chunked uploads wouldn't survive the restart of that server, but it shouldn't need to be restarted often.

Some nginx-only solutions (maybe similar features exist in Apache, I have not looked):

Even if we don't come up with a non-nginx solution, it'd still be good to switch to the client_body_in_file_only method above (assuming it works well) so we can stop messing with nginx packaging for the upload module.

@nsoranzo
Copy link
Member

Do this need to be updated now that chunked uploads are in production?

@natefoo
Copy link
Member Author

natefoo commented May 25, 2018

Yeah. I think the upload module is still going to break http/2 though, unfortunately. Unless we can redirect uploads to a subdomain, or put some work in to the upload module (if it would even be possible to support) I think we still need to address this.

@mvdbeek
Copy link
Member

mvdbeek commented Oct 16, 2021

That's done with #12656

@mvdbeek mvdbeek closed this as completed Oct 16, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants