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 #178123 is a reply to message #178120] Mon, 14 May 2012 14:22 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Shake is currently offline  Shake
Messages: 40
Registered: May 2012
Karma:
Member
El 14/05/2012 15:37, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
> Get a rteal load and you're in trouble. You'll be taking CPU time
> resizing images - EVERYONE will have to wait, not just one user. Get
> busy enough and you'll bring the server to its knees.

¿?¿? You read/understood something of what I wrote?


[Balancer]

[httpd] [httpd] [EC2]

[Mysql*] [Sphinx*]

[] independent systems.
* And other services

EC2 Machine does the scaling. Both balanced httpd are ready to process
new incoming petitions. One of them have a process waiting answer from
ec2 and only this one take more time to finish. the "HARD WORK" is done
by auto-scalable EC2 machines.



>> 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...
>
> Or you can resize offline and not waste the server's resources. But that
> would take a bit of skill, I do understand.

¿?¿? What you say is the easy way. But ineffective. And waste resources,
A LOT OF THEM. because implies having a few machines for a few days only
doing this work! And also implies a few days without having this work
available online!

The images have to be resizes yes or yes. You thought that "the server"
is only a http server. For me the server "do services". An the important
services for the company where I get a lot of experience about big
amount of image reescaling is having the images available for the user
today, just 2 seconds after the click, and not two weeks in the future,
just one second after the click.

If you think that doing resize on server is risky. Yes, it is. You have
to dimensionate correctly your hardware, and do a good logic. But it can
be done, it's done everyday by a lot of companies. I worked in one of
them. I saw. And I could empirecally (exists this word?) test the way
you explain and the way I explain. And the result in the real world, is
that the little overhead of this last is insignificant compared with the
benefits.


>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> It is always possible.

Is not if images sizes changes before you finished reescaling.

>
> First of all, you shouldn't be waiting until the website is complete
> before knowing what images you need to resize.

This say nothing.


> Second, you really have no idea how long it takes you to resize YOUR
> images. You don't have 7.5M images - that was Daniel. And you have no
> idea what equipment he has.

I don't know how long take Daniel's images. I know how long takes mine.
I exposed mi case: 1million images. And post by post I have been
detailing some data about the structure used to host.

>
> Third, if it does take 3 weeks to resize, then that's 3 weeks worth of
> load you're requiring the server to perform. That's what you don't get -
> the resizing takes time.

You are mixing apples and oranges. It take 3 weeks to resize de images
in computers that are not thinked to do. And buy a "good computer" only
to scale off-line images is more expensive than using a good dimensioned
server.

>> 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.
>>
> In REAL traffic your server won't have time to serve the web pages - it
> will be too busy resizing images. But your traffic is so light you don't
> see it.

But it is now working. On real world. And with traffic. Perhaps I do
magic... and I am a wizard or you're wrong.

>
>>>
>>> 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 :)
>>
>
> No, but the graphics people should. And good companies give their
> developers good machines. And good companies know what shouldn't be done
> on servers.

The graphics people? what are you talking about? we are talking about
rescaling images, not about its artistical content.

And also we are not talking about good or bad companies. And I you think
you have skills to judge about companies from a fragmented view you take
from a few words on Usenet... Perhaps you are also a wizard like me...

>
> That was your statement. And I suspect that's what you really do -
> except this time you got caught at it. Nice try at back-pedaling.

I said what I said. And there is a lot of things I don't said. But you
decided how I do what I don't said.

If explaining about this is for you "back-pedaling" what are you trying
to say? That I am lying or something like that?

And... Why? :) have no sense.

> Gee, that's an awful lot of unnecessary work for the server. But I guess
> as long as you get so little traffic you can afford to do so.

I wrote the traffic. 8 millions page views per month. And. Is work the
server have to do! Because we serve images!!! And we serv today, not
next week.

Greetings

Report message to a moderator

[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 06:00:08 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03966 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.3.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software