FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » Re: Windows binaries 64bit for PHP
Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Windows binaries 64bit for PHP [message #178114 is a reply to message #178111] Mon, 14 May 2012 12:25 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Shake is currently offline  Shake
Messages: 40
Registered: May 2012
Karma:
Member
El 14/05/2012 14:04, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
>
> You can do that when you have such a light load. Get a real load and
> you're in trouble.

No. The EC2 machines does the image scaling and save the results on S3.
The thing is that first user getting the image will have to wait a
little more. That's true, but the server will not be overloaded.

Ec2 could "grow" when necesary getting more CPU to "battle" the overload
without troubles. And cheapest than buying big machines to process
millions ob images offline, and then put online wasting a lot of traffic...

> But even with that, you should be resizing offline and not requiring the
> server to do it.

Not always possible, My way, first user, 2 second delay (in worst cases,
reescaling 4x3 images). Your way, all users three weeks of waiting.

In real traffic, new images are scaled dilued inside normal traffic in
an unnoticeable wat. After putting on a new size.. next weeks or average
time per pages have no noticeable changes.

>
> But it sounds like you're too cheap to get your developers decent
> machines,

Me? I am a developer. Not the boss. And as a developer I don't need
powerfull machines able to reescale milions of images :)

> and have no idea how to scale images. The "nearest bigger
> scaled image" will almost certainly give a substandard image, especially
> when you repeatedly rescale them.

Of course I know. I don't repeatedly scale all of them. You talk a lot
about things you don't know. I try to don't put every detail because I
though yoou can at least get the chance to believe that people have do
its work.

How we scale images (at lest since a few months)

Original size -> Big Size (watermarked if user wants)
Original size -> profile Size (Watermarked if user wants)
profile Size (previous to watermarking) -> Thumb_orig
profile Size (previous to watermarking) -> Thumb_size_2
profile Size (previous to watermarking) -> Thumb_size_3

Thumb orig_ is the bigger thumbs we have. And new are always smaller. So
from this point we use thumb_orig to create new thumb sizes. Its of
course a second reescale, but for this little images is enought. And the
alternative was to use the original, that usually is a to big image.
Using an >5Mpixels image to generate a 100x70px (for example) image have
no sense.

The "important" images are original, big and profile. The others are
just web little images.

Greetings
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: is_dir true from cli, false from Apache
Next Topic: in_array performance in unsorted vs sorted array
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Sat Nov 30 06:44:21 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04802 seconds