tantares
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi Nick,
Thank you. I also noticed that the exclusion settings in the log did not list the “upload”. It might be worth to mention, that I did check the setting after I saved it, and it was correct. However after the backup process I did check again and the settings were back to default!
Kind regards
Tantares
Hi,
You should find the new log here: https://pastebin.com/aZdcAvuW
Hello Nick,
I’ve tested with version 1.26.3 and got the same result. I have then set the “uploads” as an additional exclusion in the settings and it was ignored. I have never used Pastebin before and somehow I do not trust that site, as it has a bad reputation. I there another way of sending you the log file?
Regards
Hi Nick, here is the header and part of the log file, which shows, that the backup for “Others” includes the “upload” folder, which should not happen, because it was already included in the “Upload” backup:
0000.006 (0) UpdraftPlus WordPress backup plugin (https://updraftplus.com): 1.26.2 WP: 6.9.4 PHP: 8.0.30 (cgi-fcgi, Linux info 3.0 #1337 SMP Tue Jan 01 00:00:00 CEST 2000 all GNU/Linux) MySQL: 10.11.14-MariaDB-deb11-log (max packet size=67108864) WPLANG: de_DE Server: Apache safe_mode: 0 max_execution_time: 900 memory_limit: 1000M (used: 53.9M | 56.5M) multisite: N openssl: OpenSSL 1.1.1w 11 Sep 2023 mcrypt: N LANG: WP Proxy: disabled ZipArchive::addFile: Y
……
1047.100 (1) Beginning backup of other directories found in the content directory (index: 0)
1047.108 (1) Exclusion option setting (others): upgrade,cache,updraft,backup,backups,mysql.sql,debug.log
1047.111 (1) Looking for candidates to backup in: /homepages/41/d4296988342/./htdocs/wordpress/wp-content
1047.114 (1) finding files: themes: skipping: this is the themes directory
1047.117 (1) finding files: index.php: adding to list (1)
1047.120 (1) finding files: languages: adding to list (2)
1047.122 (1) finding files: uploads: adding to list (3)
1047.126 (1) finding files: mu-plugins: skipping: this is the mu-plugins directory
1047.129 (1) finding files: upgrade: skipping: excluded by options
1047.132 (1) finding files: blogs.dir: adding to list (4)
1047.135 (1) finding files: upgrade-temp-backup: adding to list (5)
1047.137 (1) finding files: updraft: skipping: this is the updraft directory
1047.140 (1) finding files: php.ini: adding to list (6)
1047.143 (1) finding files: w3tc-config: adding to list (7)
1047.145 (1) finding files: plugins: skipping: this is the plugins directory
1047.495 (1) Total entities for the zip file: 63 directories, 37895 files (0 skipped as non-modified), 4382.5 MBForum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHey Joe,
Thanks for your support and for the moment I can live without the export. By reducing my tracks to the minimum possible I can provide the intended information to the readers and I’m very happy with the functionality of Waymark not least because I remain independent from Google. This year I will try to use collections for my tracks in order to have more flexibility of modifying them individually.Thanks
Tantares
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHi @joe,
Thank you for the additional information. I have 15 tracks, which form one trip. I uploaded them individually into one single map, not using collections, since they all are adjacent. Initially I used directly the exported GPX files from the Viking application, which turned out to cause the error after loading the last track.
Then I simplified the GPX tracks using GPSBabel, which reduced their size to less 500kB. This allowed me to publish the map. But for the download it’s still to large and causes the above mentioned error.
My next test now was to do the same on my local computer acting as server. I was able to reproduce the errors in trying to publish and download the large data, but instead of an error message, the page was changed to http://mylaptop.local/?waymark_http=1 without further action or messages.
Maybe this helps to isolate the error. Please let me know, if I can do something else.Thanks a lot
Tantares
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHi @joe,
After some more testing I’m pretty sure, that the error occurs, when the aggregated map exceeds some limit in size. So the problem is not the upload but the posting of the complete map. Would you know, where such limits are defined and whether there is a way of checking the overall map data size. It would be helpful to know that and if possible to remove some data.
Happy New Year!
Tantares
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHi @joe,
Sorry, I was away. Can I upload or send the GPX file (1MB) to you, because it is on a private computer and the site with the map is a private site not available to public.
Tantares
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHello @joe
Thank you for your reply. I’ve tested the upload of the latest GPX file via the media library as suggested by you. The upload itself works as expected and shows on the map but as soon as I want to publish the new map the same error occurs. Hence I believe, that the error is not caused by the upload itself but later during the publishing process. As this error has only started after many previous successful updates, I assume that the total size of the accumulated map must be the problem. Is there any method of removing some of the previous GPX uploads to test that?
Cheers
Tantares
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHi Joe,
Tried everything without success including contacting the web-server provider. the PHP parameters post_max_size and upload_max_filesize were increased from 64M to 256M.
Any further idea, where the limit might come from or if the message might be misleading?
Cheers
Tantares
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Waymark] Map Size too largeHi @joe,
As the same error message (“Request Entity Too Large The requested resource does not allow request data with POST requests, or the amount of data provided in the request exceeds the capacity limit.”) appears, when I try to export and DOWNLOAD the GPX data from the Waymark map and I’ve increased all max limit parameters, wouldn’t it be possible, that the message is somewhere else?
Unfortunately the website is private and I cannot share the URL. However it should be quite easy to reproduce the behaviors by setting up a website with the twenty-twenty-two theme and replacing the flying bird image in the header of the startpage with your own image. After that you will see, that the users with editor roles still see the bird whereas the admin and readers see the modified image. The navigation part can also be reproduced very easy by changing the standard links and adding new ones.
Best Regards
TantaresHello thelmachido, unfortunately I can’t send you a link since it is a private site. However I made some more investigations and found, that the different look of the startpage is caused by access restrictions of the PDA (Prevent Direct Access) plugin. Looks like some modified items are not accessible for editors whereas others are. It’s not the Sample Page, it’s the bird image and the order of the navigation items on the startpage. So even when I replace the bird image with a image uploaded by the editor, she still sees the bird instead.
Sorry for bothering you, but maybe you can give me a hint how and where to grant access while still keeping the PDA.
ThanksThey are editors
When I add a new navigation item to the end of the startpage menu, it appears for them at the first place instead
very special.