lsapi packet too large

Discussion in 'PHP' started by felosi, Sep 20, 2008.

  1. felosi

    felosi Well-Known Member

    I got a client who has been getting 503 errors on a script they have. the error is this
    2008-09-20 12:42:08.477 [WARN] [] LSAPI Packet is too large: 66008
    2008-09-20 12:42:08.477 [INFO] [] connection to [uds://tmp/lshttpd/APVH_faunaads.com_Suphp.sock] on request #33, error: Input/output error!
    2008-09-20 12:42:08.570 [WARN] [] LSAPI Packet is too large: 66008
    2008-09-20 12:42:08.570 [INFO] [] connection to [uds://tmp/lshttpd/APVH_faunaads.com_Suphp.sock] on request #10, error: Input/output error!
    2008-09-20 12:42:08.570 [NOTICE] [] oops! 503 Service Unavailable
    2008-09-20 12:42:08.570 [NOTICE] [] Content len: 0, Request line:

    Ive tried to do everything. I cant find any setting on this
  2. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    This error means that the script generate an extremely large response header. larger than 64K.
    Maybe store too much data in the cookies? It is not efficient.
  3. felosi

    felosi Well-Known Member

    not sure, its some software the client had installed. Is there anyway to increase the limit?
  4. felosi

    felosi Well-Known Member

    George is there any way possible to increase this limit. Basically the clients coder told him nothing is wrong with his script and that we need to fix it on server side because it does work on apache
  5. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    It wont work as the LSWS also limit the size of response header, see the tuning tab of server configuration. So, even this LSAPI limit being lifted, it wont pass the next checkpoint.

    LiteSpeed is not friendly with script produce large response headers.
  6. d3vnul

    d3vnul Member

    As far as i can see , there are quite some things that litespeed is not friendly with.
    For such a price for a webserver ( thinking about nginx for example which is free and probably same level of performance ) litespeed should do something to outstand from the free webservers.

    Should be very customizable(including support of the most webservers features). At this point, litespeed seems to be quite limited to what you "developers" had in mind is standard. Well ..... there are tons of us out there that don't exactly fit into the standard thingy. Should think about that.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  7. miracle

    miracle Member

    I agree, it should have more features than other web servers, such as nginx.

Share This Page