Topic: 413 Request Entity Too Large
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #39,841
413 Request Entity Too Large
r04r joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #530,445
Posting this without any indication whatsoever as to what triggered it, or if it happens frequently etc, is very helpful, thank you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 57 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #530,446
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 23 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #530,447
to many bytes
Where did you get this?
Where did you get this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #530,448
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #530,450
@previous (A)
Have only viewed that when I was working in Siberia a few years ago. Was common there cause of crappy infrastructure. Not a put down cause outback of Australia was just as lame.
Not at all in my area of expertise. Syops tells me I should not see stuff I see almost 95% if time re Tubes Twisted yet I sure do
Have only viewed that when I was working in Siberia a few years ago. Was common there cause of crappy infrastructure. Not a put down cause outback of Australia was just as lame.
Not at all in my area of expertise. Syops tells me I should not see stuff I see almost 95% if time re Tubes Twisted yet I sure do
r04r replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #530,459
@previous (Syntax)
You are literally the only person to encounter that error (and then mention it) in the past 1-2 years. I know what causes it. It should not be happening, yet you are the only person that manages to make it happen. If anyone else encounters that issue I'll gladly look into it some more, but until then I have no other option than to conclude that you are fucking retarded/demented (this seems very, very clear by now anyway) and somehow broke your system.
You are literally the only person to encounter that error (and then mention it) in the past 1-2 years. I know what causes it. It should not be happening, yet you are the only person that manages to make it happen. If anyone else encounters that issue I'll gladly look into it some more, but until then I have no other option than to conclude that you are fucking retarded/demented (this seems very, very clear by now anyway) and somehow broke your system.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #530,460
@previous (r04r)
The tubes twisted thing? Sure, that happens to me. It happens if you leave a reply page open for too long and then try to post the reply.
It's a non-issue as long as you post your reply once you're done writing it. Even then, it's only a brief delay.
The tubes twisted thing? Sure, that happens to me. It happens if you leave a reply page open for too long and then try to post the reply.
It's a non-issue as long as you post your reply once you're done writing it. Even then, it's only a brief delay.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #530,461
r04r replied with this 11 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #530,463
@530,460 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
@previous (E)
Finally someone non-demented that can hopefully provide some insight. I really just can't converse with/comprehend Syntax. It's impossible and an exercise in futility if you hope to get anything productive out of it. Anyway, it should only happen if your browser expired its session. The current configuration dictates this should only happens when the browser is closed. The expiration time on the server is in the range of 4-6 hours iirc. Do you leave it open for that long? What kind of timeframes are we talking about? Also, what browser(s)?
@previous (E)
Finally someone non-demented that can hopefully provide some insight. I really just can't converse with/comprehend Syntax. It's impossible and an exercise in futility if you hope to get anything productive out of it. Anyway, it should only happen if your browser expired its session. The current configuration dictates this should only happens when the browser is closed. The expiration time on the server is in the range of 4-6 hours iirc. Do you leave it open for that long? What kind of timeframes are we talking about? Also, what browser(s)?
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #530,468
@previous (r04r)
I'me fairly sure I can leave it open for less than 4-6 hours and get the error, but I'm afraid I'm not completely certain on that. My browsers are Firefox and Safari (mobile).
Personally, I'm not at all bothered by it anyway. As I said, it's a very infrequent and very minor inconvinience.
I'me fairly sure I can leave it open for less than 4-6 hours and get the error, but I'm afraid I'm not completely certain on that. My browsers are Firefox and Safari (mobile).
Personally, I'm not at all bothered by it anyway. As I said, it's a very infrequent and very minor inconvinience.
r04r replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #530,472
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #530,984
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #530,987
@530,472 (r04r)
r04r It happens often because I start a reply and then get interrupted with work. I go back to finish the reply - 10 or 15 minutes and I get the tubes twisted. Often a two tubes twisted.
Does happen to me for the same reason on TC but a fraction of the time as MC.
I will try and do a screen cap to show you the exact message I keep getting.
Occurs with Firefox and Chrome. But cannot say the session time fails are the same.
Odd that when this happens I do not see it recorded here
https://minichan.org/failed_postings
And yes I understand your frustration re communicating with me - Yet others here read and even quote and ask me questions - That means They can understand' and if asked I can give you examples but wood to that only in chat
r04r It happens often because I start a reply and then get interrupted with work. I go back to finish the reply - 10 or 15 minutes and I get the tubes twisted. Often a two tubes twisted.
Does happen to me for the same reason on TC but a fraction of the time as MC.
I will try and do a screen cap to show you the exact message I keep getting.
Occurs with Firefox and Chrome. But cannot say the session time fails are the same.
Odd that when this happens I do not see it recorded here
https://minichan.org/failed_postings
And yes I understand your frustration re communicating with me - Yet others here read and even quote and ask me questions - That means They can understand' and if asked I can give you examples but wood to that only in chat
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #530,990
@previous (Syntax)
Try to ignore r04rs aloofness, the rude condescending tone is her monthly schtick.
Try to ignore r04rs aloofness, the rude condescending tone is her monthly schtick.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #531,000
@previous (A)
She does an excellent job communicating with her bot in MC Chat.
Of late she gets mad as fuck when I use her as an example.
She does an excellent job communicating with her bot in MC Chat.
Of late she gets mad as fuck when I use her as an example.
r04r replied with this 11 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,044
@previous (Syntax)
You "use me as an example" for things that do not relate to me whatsoever. You pretend to know me, yet we've barely interacted other than me telling you to stop shitting up the board with your retardation. You're just some creepy demented weirdo as far as I'm concerned.
You "use me as an example" for things that do not relate to me whatsoever. You pretend to know me, yet we've barely interacted other than me telling you to stop shitting up the board with your retardation. You're just some creepy demented weirdo as far as I'm concerned.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,049
@previous (r04r)
He does that a lot, acts like he's closer to people than he really is.
It's part of his wanting to seem like he has special insight/knowledge.
He does that a lot, acts like he's closer to people than he really is.
It's part of his wanting to seem like he has special insight/knowledge.
r04r replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,050
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I know, and it's painfully obvious. I'll keep calling him out on his shit as long as he keeps using my name, though.
He's tried to claim before that he had special connections to the staff too, lol.
I know, and it's painfully obvious. I'll keep calling him out on his shit as long as he keeps using my name, though.
He's tried to claim before that he had special connections to the staff too, lol.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,062
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,064
I believe that means the image you attempted to upload far exceeded the board restrictions. A 5MB gif maybe?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,080
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,137
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,149
i wood way in on this, but i know all 2 well someone in charge here woud have a cow and blow her stack if i share 2 much of what she doesn't want you to need to know!
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,150
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,223
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,225
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,226
And while I have your attention.
Did you know? Prior to recent changes. Attempts to load images larger then your current limit resulted in a message that stated the limit
Now the message is
413 Request Entity Too Large
nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
I got this on purpose by trying to upload a 1 Meg jpeg
Did you know? Prior to recent changes. Attempts to load images larger then your current limit resulted in a message that stated the limit
Now the message is
413 Request Entity Too Large
nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
I got this on purpose by trying to upload a 1 Meg jpeg
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,227
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,229
@previous (I)
Look at the topic. It appears there is more then one reason a 413 message exists.
Prior message before recent changes spelled out the limit and I think it was 365KB - So it directly explained why post failed.
Look at the topic. It appears there is more then one reason a 413 message exists.
Prior message before recent changes spelled out the limit and I think it was 365KB - So it directly explained why post failed.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,232
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,242
@previous (I)
Yes yes. Now this in not in my area of expertise. Yet I have been around b4 we had GUI (A graphical user interface) The standard in human-computer interaction.
Module ngx_http_core_module ... client_max_body_size
> Syntax: client_max_body_size size;
> Default:
> client_max_body_size 1m;
> Context: http, server, location
> Sets the maximum allowed size of the client request body, specified in the “Content-Length” request header field. If the size in a request exceeds the configured value, the 413 (Request Entity Too >Large) error is returned to the client.
So in my non expertise opinion - This Machine generated message is a step back from wot was previously provided by MC and the current message can be generated for a huge mother number of reasons.
People an rightfully so - Say I am a poor communicator and I accept that. I am only pointing out and in a thread that is on topic - The returned message poorly communicates and
> Please be aware that browsers cannot correctly display this error
Yes yes. Now this in not in my area of expertise. Yet I have been around b4 we had GUI (A graphical user interface) The standard in human-computer interaction.
Module ngx_http_core_module ... client_max_body_size
> Syntax: client_max_body_size size;
> Default:
> client_max_body_size 1m;
> Context: http, server, location
> Sets the maximum allowed size of the client request body, specified in the “Content-Length” request header field. If the size in a request exceeds the configured value, the 413 (Request Entity Too >Large) error is returned to the client.
Please be aware that browsers cannot correctly display this error. Setting size to 0 disables checking of client request body size.
So in my non expertise opinion - This Machine generated message is a step back from wot was previously provided by MC and the current message can be generated for a huge mother number of reasons.
People an rightfully so - Say I am a poor communicator and I accept that. I am only pointing out and in a thread that is on topic - The returned message poorly communicates and
> Please be aware that browsers cannot correctly display this error
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 11 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,286
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,290
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,292
@531,286 (I)
So I could say:
So in my non expertise opinion - This Machine generated message is a step back from wot was previously provided by MC and the current message can be generated for a huge mother number of reasons.
People an rightfully so - Say I am a poor communicator and I accept that. I am only pointing out and in a thread that is on topic - The returned message poorly communicates and
> Please be aware that browsers cannot correctly display this error
So I could say:
So in my non expertise opinion - This Machine generated message is a step back from wot was previously provided by MC and the current message can be generated for a huge mother number of reasons.
People an rightfully so - Say I am a poor communicator and I accept that. I am only pointing out and in a thread that is on topic - The returned message poorly communicates and
> Please be aware that browsers cannot correctly display this error
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,293
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,295
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,298
@531,293 (G)I answered it. You blind?
@previous (I)
> Yes, you are a terrible communicator.
Shocking just shocking. But and Yes I agree about Terrible even Horrid Yet many say they cannot understand me and then others quote and reply and discuss - So that means they must have this?
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,299
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,300
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,303
@531,299 (G)
Yes I did.
https://minichan.org/topic/39838
@previous (I)
Super busy multi-tasking re work load - When I have time and only IF requested by a proper Credentialed authority of MC
I will be most happy to produce the 413 Request Entity Too Large
Do so with IE Firefox - Chrome - Opera -
Screen Cap and show.
Otherwise I think this May be my last reply on this subject to Anonymous I On this subject
Yes I did.
https://minichan.org/topic/39838
@previous (I)
Super busy multi-tasking re work load - When I have time and only IF requested by a proper Credentialed authority of MC
I will be most happy to produce the 413 Request Entity Too Large
Do so with IE Firefox - Chrome - Opera -
Screen Cap and show.
Otherwise I think this May be my last reply on this subject to Anonymous I On this subject
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,314
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,316
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,319
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,320
@previous (I)
once again I must share with anons the wisdom of Mark Twain
WOOD also preface with note on how English Shakespeare invented new words while riting
"SPELLING"
"I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing. I have a correspondent whose letters are always a refreshment to me, there is such a breezy unfettered originality about his orthography. He always spells Kow with a large K. Now that is just as good as to spell it with a small one. It is better. It gives the imagination a broader field, a wider scope. It suggests to the mind a grand, vague, impressive new kind of a cow."
"I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more, merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort transfers the distinction to our heavenly home—where possibly it is a matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt."
"I never had any large respect for good spelling. That is my feeling yet. Before the spelling-book came with its arbitrary forms, men unconsciously revealed shades of their characters and also added enlightening shades of expression to what they wrote by their spelling, and so it is possible that the spelling-book has been a doubtful benevolence to us."
"...ours is a mongrel language which started with a child's vocabulary of three hundred words, and now consists of two hundred and twenty-five thousand; the whole lot, with the exception of the original and legitimate three hundred, borrowed, stolen, smouched from every unwatched language under the sun, the spelling of each individual word of the lot locating the source of the theft and preserving the memory of the revered crime."
once again I must share with anons the wisdom of Mark Twain
WOOD also preface with note on how English Shakespeare invented new words while riting
"SPELLING"
"I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing. I have a correspondent whose letters are always a refreshment to me, there is such a breezy unfettered originality about his orthography. He always spells Kow with a large K. Now that is just as good as to spell it with a small one. It is better. It gives the imagination a broader field, a wider scope. It suggests to the mind a grand, vague, impressive new kind of a cow."
"I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more, merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort transfers the distinction to our heavenly home—where possibly it is a matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt."
"I never had any large respect for good spelling. That is my feeling yet. Before the spelling-book came with its arbitrary forms, men unconsciously revealed shades of their characters and also added enlightening shades of expression to what they wrote by their spelling, and so it is possible that the spelling-book has been a doubtful benevolence to us."
"...ours is a mongrel language which started with a child's vocabulary of three hundred words, and now consists of two hundred and twenty-five thousand; the whole lot, with the exception of the original and legitimate three hundred, borrowed, stolen, smouched from every unwatched language under the sun, the spelling of each individual word of the lot locating the source of the theft and preserving the memory of the revered crime."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,326
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #531,348
@531,229 (Syntax)I believe it's around 530kb. A week or two ago I posted this image, but my first attempt was a screenshot of a jpeg and the jpeg artifacts wrecked the png compression and causing the 'image too big' error, so I instead down-scaled the inner screenshot from my original png, which increased the compress-ability of the final image, and allowed me to upload it directly to MC.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)