| Re: Windows binaries 64bit for PHP [message #178055 is a reply to message #178051] |
Fri, 11 May 2012 14:30   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 5/11/2012 9:44 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 1:38 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 5/11/2012 7:23 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2012 6:23 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2012 10:54 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
>>>> > On 5/9/2012 4:38 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >> On 5/9/2012 10:23 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
>>>> >>> On 5/9/2012 3:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 5/9/2012 3:56 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 5/9/2012 4:29 AM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:25:26 +0200, Michael Fesser wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/7/2012 11:37 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly true, but if you scale to sizes you don't need, you
>>>> >>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>> >>>>>>>>> use
>>>> >>>>>>>>> more processor time! Our disk space is definitely not the
>>>> >>>>>>>>> bottleneck.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> And if you repeatedly rescale the same image to the same size,
>>>> >>>>>>>> you're
>>>> >>>>>>>> using even more processor time!
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> You missed the word 'caching'. You rescale when needed, and only
>>>> >>>>>>> once.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> How is this different than pre-scaling the images?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> It is different because they are *only* rescaled when not found.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> One approach I used:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 1) Need image xyz_2012_march_nr12_300x500.jpg
>>>> >>>>> (The 300x500 is dimensions needed.)
>>>> >>>>> 2) Check if it exists.
>>>> >>>>> If not: Create it out of original (xyz_2012_march_nr12.jpg in this
>>>> >>>>> case)
>>>> >>>>> and store it.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> One can easily wrap this functionality in a function.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> So the difference is that you don't need a batchjob that
>>>> >>>>> apparently
>>>> >>>>> needs months and that will resize many images that are never
>>>> >>>>> needed, or
>>>> >>>>> never needed on that size.
>>>> >>>>> (I have my doubts about the alleged months, but that doesn't
>>>> >>>>> matter.)
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Regards,
>>>> >>>>> Erwin Moller
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> And another waste of time. You should know what size(s) you need,
>>>> >>>> and be
>>>> >>>> able to prescale your images. I don't think I've ever seen a site
>>>> >>>> which
>>>> >>>> needs more than 3-4 sizes for an image, and most sites don't need
>>>> >>>> that.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is not that simple, Jerry.
>>>> >>> When you have simple design-once website: yes, then I agree.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> But when you deal with a team that uses lots of pictures, you don't
>>>> >>> want
>>>> >>> to come back every time some design-guru decides to change the
>>>> >>> looks of
>>>> >>> the website and needs different formats for the existing pictures. I
>>>> >>> rather make a routine and be done with the problem.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Regards,
>>>> >>> Erwin Moller
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is even easier than that, Erwin. A quick batch file can easily
>>>> >> convert pictures to any size you want.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, I understand that.
>>>> > The point is that I expect less than 1% of them will be used in that
>>>> > format eventually. So it feels like a waste of diskspace to produce
>>>> > them
>>>> > in all formats.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> But how often does that happen? My clients don't generally make
>>>> >> changes
>>>> >> to their site layout very often. And when they do, there's a lot
>>>> >> more to
>>>> >> it than just converting images.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > In my case it is a website for city promotion.
>>>> > There is a huge amount of image data, and most is seldom used.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > Erwin Moller
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> So? You know what sizes you need (or at least you should).
>>>
>>> How should I know?
>>> These web designers change their mind every congress they visit.
>>>
>>
>> No problem - a simple batch job rescales the images to whatever size you
>> specify.
>
> That is one way.
> It will take up a huge amount of diskspace, defining images that are
> never used.
> I don't see the point in approaching it like that.
>
> Of course: when you have a small site that seldom changes, there is no
> need for the approach, but when you deal with many images and designers
> that want them in other formats on a regular basis, it is smarter to
> define them on demand.
> All you need for this is some approach that catches missing images,
> which van be easily handles by, for example, Apache.
>
> To be honest: I don't understand your reluctance at all.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
>
In case you haven't figured it out - disk space is cheap - much cheaper
than CPU. But then if you're only getting 200 hits a day I guess the
extra load doesn't make any difference.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]