Jabber File transfer Limitations?

Hello,
I am looking for documentation defining if there are any limitations for Jabber clients to transfer files with an On-Prem Presence deployment, either for file size or for file type.
I do know that you can dis-allow the feature administratively but that is not what I am looking to confirm.
Thank you,
Casey Nordendale

You can blacklist specific file extensions using the jabber-config.xml file; however, this is a Jabber policy, not a server policy and therefor would not apply to any third-party XMPP clients. The CUP/IM&P server implements XEP-0096 for file transfers. None of the CUP, Jabber, or XMPP extension documentation specifies a file size limit.
Please remember to rate helpful responses and identify helpful or correct answers.

Similar Messages

Large file transfer limitations

Does anyone know of a limitation to the size of files that can be uploaded and downloaded using the java client in Agile 9.3.0.1 or 9.2.2.2?
We want to transfer files up to 5GB. We have successfully transferred smaller files up to 500 mb but we get failures above that consistently.
If you know of any setting that can be set to allow this please let me know.
Thanks
Erik

Erik,
I never worked on this software before, but did you check [Agile Documentation|http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/agile.html] and see if it mention anything about the file size?
You may also review these documents and see if it helps.
Note: 758844.1 - Fileload Fails Loading Of Files With Filesize Greater Than 2 GB on AIX Platform
Note: 736962.1 - What are the Limitations of File Management Server (FMS)?
Regards,
Husein

Jabber for Windows file transfer location

Is there a way to change the default location of files when transfered through Jabber? I know that via the XML config file I can disable and restrict file types, but what I really want to do is move the file transfer locatoin off the local machine to a on site server for security purposes.
Thanks
Michael

This would be good feature to have! I don't believe we have this yet (change the destination file location).

OS X Server Messages Server Jabber Proxy65 File Transfer Solution

Like many others, I'm running OS X 10.9 Server behind NAT, and finding that Messages (aka iChat) which uses Jabber/XMPP is hit-or miss when doing file transfers between LAN and WAN clients.
The solution I found was here: messages server proxy65 behind NAT?
The problem : by default, the proxy65 config (which handles Jabber file transfers) binds to the server's IP address. In a NAT setup, this would be a LAN address. When the file transfer initiates, this LAN address is advertised to the clients, and if they are on the WAN, it's not a routable address.
You might think you could use the WAN IP address instead - but this fails within the proxy65 setup with this error:
twisted.internet.error.CannotListenError: Couldn't listen on 64.XXX.XXX.XXX:7777: [Errno 49] Can't assign requested address.
The solution, as per the post, is to comment out one line in the proxy65.py file and use an actual DNS name in the com.apple.proxy65.plist file.
Although that solution was written for 10.6 this seems to work well for me in 10.9.

FYI, I've submitted this as rdar://19926772

File Transfer Speed Limiter / Queuer for Network?

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone out there knows of an application I can use to queue up file transfers and limit their speed across the network?
Preferably though; is there a way I can force priority to be given to the host machine if it needs to use its own hard drive?
Thanks Guys
iain
Here's an example of what I'm trying to do:
Steve is editing a video on an external hard drive that has files on it that I want to copy to my computer. If I just start copying those files, the file transfer seems to take precedence over what steve is doing and it disrupts his work (his playback becomes choppy). I figure if I could transfer the files more slowly, it wouldn't cause such a performance hit for Steve.

Check out Throttled which should do what you want.

How to achieve the maximum file transfer rate from PXI to local host?

I will have to copy a huge amount of data (as big as 50 GB) from a PXI-8106 unit on site to a laptop. Currently it would take several hours. It is critical to max out the data transfer rate.
The standard method we've been using is just drag and drop using Windows Explorer via FTP. I tried to use FTP VIs with Filezilla Server as well but the transfer rate is only like 1.5 MB/s. Is this normal? Once I saw it was 3.0 MB/s but for some reason, that isn't happening now.
For another option, I tried to transfer data to a USB flash drive but it's even slower. As far as I know, USB 2.0 transfer rate is supposed to be around 60 MB/s but why would it be slower than 1.5 MB/s? What could be the speed limiting factor in my file transfer setup?
Any tips on improving file transfer rate would be appreciated!

Sustained 40 MB/s? That is my dream speed! The maximum speed I've ever seen here was about 25 MB/s, which is still very good, and that happened only after copying back and forth, which I explained above. Let me go through what I did with screencaps first.
These are the test tdms files to transfer in the PXI: an original file witten in the PXI and its copy file. I copied the original file from PXI to laptop and renamed it (added '_copy') and then copied it back to PXI.
FTP module is transferring the original file to the Filezilla server on laptop. Note the low speed.
FTP module is transferring the copy file to the Filezilla server on laptop. Note the higher speed.
This is the FTP sub VI I'm using. It transfers files in sub-folders (one level lower), too. The data connection is set to 'passive' on the FTP Put Multiple Files VI but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I attach the sub VI.
You tried the file transfer with a 500 MB text file. Would there be any difference if the file type was tdms? Would the RAM size matter? It is 2GB here.
And the LED is orange, which means Gigabit.
Another question: Is there any way to programmatically stop file transfer in progress? Currently, I just have to restart the PXI.
Thank you!
Attachments:
FTP.vi ‏40 KB

When will file transfer be used to send a message?

Hi,
My understanding is that a message is only sent via file transfer if the size of the message is greater than 75% of the IPC queue capacity; file transfer will never be used in response to a blocking situation that arises due to the number of messages exhausting the queue capacity (this will result in an immediate failure if the TPNOBLOCK flag is used, or else a failure response when the timeout is reached).
We have the following message in the ULOG:
"TMQUEUE.4288.3081606848.0: LIBTUX_CAT:1285: WARN: tpreturn message send blocked, will try file transfer"
Would I be correct in assuming this is because of the size of the message, or is this something specific to TMQUEUE operations? If my understanding of how transfer by disk can occur is wrong, please set me straight!
Thanks,
Malcolm.

Malcolm,
Tuxedo will use file transfer if
a) The size of the message is greater than 75% of the total capacity of the queue.
b) The original msgsnd() fails with EINVAL. (Some operating systems have a MSGMAX kernel configuration parameter limiting the size of an individual message which can be set to less than the total capacity of the queue. If an application attempts to send a message greater than this size it will fail with EINVAL.)
c) The original non-blocking msgsnd() fails with EAGAIN and the message is being sent by tpreturn(). (This is the case where LIBTUX_CAT:1285 is logged.)
d) The original non-blocking msgsnd() fails with EAGAIN, the TPNOBLOCK option is not set, the original message is over 500 bytes, the TMNOTHREADS environment variable is not set to Y, and the message is not being sent by certain system processes that are always single threaded.
For domain gateways only, the file transfer in case (c) can be avoided if GW_FILETRANSFER=OFF is set.
Regards,
Ed

Finder windows not opening, file transfer box not showing.

If I go to open Finder from the dock, or using Command + N a new window doesn't open, I have to open it using harddrive icon off my desktop. Also, when transferring files from drive to drive (either on my computer or across the network) the box showing how far the transfer has progressed doesn't turn up. These are causing me significant problems, so if anyone can help that would be hugely appreciated!
Oh, as I've been writing this about 30 finder windows opened at once, so it appears soemthing is delaying the response, although not regurlary, as they all opened at once. They do now open but the file transfer isn't showing still. My computer has been on an hour and a half for finder to sort itself out, it's ridiculous!

Hi MLansdell, Welcome to Apple Discussions.
Create a new account, name it "test" and see how your Finder works in that User acct? (That will tell if your problem is systemwide or limited to your User acct.) This account is just for test, do nothing further with it.
Open System Preferences >> Accounts >> "+" make it an admin account.
Let us know and we'll troubleshoot this further.
-mj
[email protected]

Bandwidth control druing large file transfer

My user has an application that requires him to transfer hugh files from one location to another location.
our whole company is connected via ipvpn tunnel each office has a 20Mb ethernet WAN link.
when this user starts his file transfer, it will choke up the whole 20Mb in that particular office.
we have checked at the application layer, but there is no option to control the file transfer speed or bandwidth
is that any way, I can control the bandwidth usage of this user?

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Your options for bandwidth control depend much on your platforms. Some devices would allow you to police or shape your traffic, but at Vasilii describes, probably the best solution would be to deprioritize this bulk transfer traffic using QoS. (For 20 Mbps, you might need a hierarchal shaper. Also for this to work well with Internet VPN, you cannot have anything else sharing Internet ingress.)

Port 548 Shutting Down File Transfer Over Network

OK, nobody laugh, but I am trying to transfer some old work files from an ancient PowerBook 3400 (including many on Zip disks) running OS 8.1 to one of our newer machines so we can look through them at our leisure later and save those of interest.
On the PowerBook, I have successfully connected to both of the new machines (see below) via Chooser and started to copy files to those machines. In the middle of the copy, after a few minutes, I get the following message: 192.168.1.xx:548 "The file server connection has closed down". 192.168.1.xx is the LAN IP address of the receiving machine. Personal File Sharing is allowed, and file permissions have been given to Others in the receiving folder. Do I need to do authorize something on Port 548 to allow the transfer?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Bob

Hi Ralph
I can see where that might be the case, but file transfer worked flawlessly BEFORE I went wireless using the same modem. The only way to unblock ports on my router is to turn NAT off - it creates a DMZ, so it permits unhindered 2-way traffic...
It's a pretty confusing piece of kit. Maybe I should just get a Netgear anyway!
I have a laptop on the wireless network as well, and file transfer works a treat between it and the iMac. All I can think of is that because I'm now working on a LAN, there's a blockage to get out to the "Real World" - even though it's easy for video to pass through.
I'll check my unblocked ports again, just to be sure. I'm unfamilar with the term "Jabber" - is that what Apple decided to call one of the elements of iChat? Excuse my ignorance...!

WebUtil File Transfer - file size limit

Does anybody know what the file size limit is if I want to transfer it from the client to the application server using WebUtil? The fileupload bean had a limit of 4 Mb.
Anton Weindl

Webutil is only supported for 10g. THe following is added to the release notes:
When using Oracle Forms Webutil File transfer function, you must take into consideration performance and resources issues. The current implementation is that the size of the Forms application server process will increase in correlation with the size of the file that is being transferred. This, of course, has minimum impact with file sizes of tens or hundreds of kilobytes. However, transfers of tens or hundreds of megabytes will impact the server side process. This is currently tracked in bug 3151489.
Note that current testing up to 150MB has shown no specific limits for transfers between the database and the client using WebUtil. Testing file transfers from the client to the application server has shown no specific limit up to 400Mb; however, a limit of 23Mb has been identified for application server to client file transfers.

Please rank in terms of file transfer speed between FW800 external HDs

Hello,
I have two triple interface (FW400/FW800/USB2) 1000GB external hard drives. My 17inch Macbook Pro has 1xFW800 and 1xFW400. Please rank the following in terms of speed of transferring files directly between the external hard discs:
1. Connect one to FW400 and one to FW800.
2. Daisy chain FW800.
3. Buy a 2 slot FW800 express card and connect both via this card.
4. Buy a 2 slot FW800 express card and connect one drive to this card and the other to the inbuilt FW800 port on the Macbook Pro.
Thank you very much for your replies,
Ben

For things like file transfer with large files, the internal drive will be noticeably faster, because it is a single continuous action.
For booting and running a computer, there are many things happening at once, and disk access speed is only a small part of the overall process. Other factors related to the current status of the drives, such as amount of free space and fragmentation of system-related files will have an effect as well. If you perform a brand new system installation on a newly erased external drive, the system's files will be optimally placed with plenty of free space. Compare that to your internal drive, with the existing system's files somewhat more scattered over the drive (happens over time) and less contiguous free space (happens with ongoing adding and deleting of files)... The external drive may actually run faster.
I have Mac OS X systems on external FireWire (400) and USB 2.0 drives. The internal drive feels a bit faster, but it is not something that is too noticeable. The ideal setup to optimize disk access speed is a limited size internal drive volume (it can be a partition) with the OS and apps installed. This volume should be devoted mostly to the OS and apps and have a decent amount of free space. If the drive is partitioned, use the first partition. Your personal data is then stored mostly on your the other partition (if the internal drive is partitioned) or an external drive. This keeps the OS and application files confined in one fast portion of the drive, and reduces ongoing fragmentation of files and free space, because OS and app files do not change very often, compared to user data files.
However, for most users, the benefit gained is not enough to justify the added effort and complexity. One drive with everything bunched together is simple and easy, and works fine.

SCCM Distribution Slow? BITS disabled, bandwidth unlimited, regular file transfer is fast

Hello,
I have noticed that when I'm distributing large files (Operating System Images) to our on-site distribution points, the file transfers have been taking a substantial amount of time. Using resource monitor and task manager, the transfer is happening at less
than 100Mb/s on our Gigabit network. However, when I do a normal file transfer between the site server and distribution point using Explorer, the transfer maxes out the connection at 970-987Mb/s.
I have confirmed that BITS is disabled for all my distribution points, maximum threads per package was increased to 500 with no performance increase, and Client Computer Communication under site properties is set to HTTPS or HTTP (distribution points set
to HTTP).
Setup:
Site Server - Server 2012
3 Distribution Points (On-site) - Server 2012
I did a lot of research online the past few days and didn't find anything relating to my issue, nor any solutions resolving this slow transfer. Is there something I'm not understanding correctly or may I have a setting wrong?

BITS is not used when transferring content to DPs (unless you are using pull DPs).
Have you alreada checked if the transfer to those DPs is throttled (can be found in the properties of each remote DP)?
Also monitor distmgr.log and pkgtransfermgr.log.
The 'Rate Limits' tab on each distribution point's properties page is set to unlimited. The only thing I can think of is the environment was setup in our old building (just built a new headquarters) on a 100Mbit connection, but the new building now has gigabit.
distmgr.log and pkgtransfermgr.log doesn't really give me any indicators of what would be causing it to be slow. :\
Should I open a premiere ticket?

Hide the Bluetooth File Transfer Window

Can anyone give me any clues as to how I could stop the File transfer WIndow appearing when I Bluetooth an image from phone to my Mac?
It is the Obex Agent window. That says Incoming File etc
It will appear over any open applications right in the centre of the screen. I have tried instantly hiding it when it appears with Applescript but this is not quite good enough for my purposes.
Any idea how I can ideally disable it. Or at least move its location.
Or a better place to ask for help?
Thanks
Gavin

Apple aren't here. You won't get a response from Apple on this user-to-user help forum.
Although speculation on Apple policies is not permitted on this forum, it has been previously speculated frequently, that the reasons for not allowing Bluetooth file transfers are:
1) Bluetooth is too slow for transferring multi-megabyte / gigabyte media files that iOS devices typically store. There are much faster ways of transferring files, not limited by arbitrary distances Bluetooth is.
2) Allowing file transfers would allow illegal sharing of copyrighted music and video files. Apple has a duty to protect such files from easy sharing due to agreements with the copyright holders for whom they sell this copyrighted content in the iTunes Store.

Bluetooth - any hope for file transfer in near future???

Hi,
Presently iPhone 4 does not allow bluetooth file transfer to other mobile devices and even my PC.
I am not interested in illegal music/video transfer but genuinely transferring my data files between pc and other mobile devices and use it like a mobile storage device. I don't like the idea of mailing my file and then downloading it again when I have both devices in my hand! It's not helpful when other devices do not have internet connection or limited internet usage.
Please let me know if apple policies would allow it to make file transfer possible in near future (except music and video). Otherwise it would greatly reduce its usability for me.
*I hate its file storing and transferring features.*
*Another reason for hating iPhone is 'Flash'.*
Apart from this, its simply superb.
agmad

Hoekstes wrote:
Why is something so simple its available on 10 year old Nokia 3310 bricks not available on an iPhone. Its ridiculous.
Because there is nowhere to put the files on an iPhone. There is no common file storage area on an iPhone that all apps can access. Each app sits in a sandbox for security purposes. Each app can only access its own files. You would have to have an app running where the files would go, and then the files would only be available to that app.
The old Nokia has a common file area and does not have the security the iPhone does, but then 10 years ago you probably did not need the security.

Jabber File transfer Limitations?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for