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 #178097 is a reply to message #178096] Sun, 13 May 2012 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
Senior Member
On 5/13/2012 12:54 PM, Shake wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle a exposé le 13/05/2012 :
>>
>> You aren't making any sense. Why would it take a server which is doing
>> more important things LESS time and resources to do the same job as
>> another machine not doing anything.
>
> This means you have to have two machines. At least.
>

You need a development machine in addition to your server, anyway. Or
do you do development on a live system?

And anyone who has 7.5M images has more than one machine!

>>
>> The answer is, it doesn't. In fact, overall, it takes the server MORE
>> time and resources to do the same job.
>
> But you have a server with MORE resources to do the job.
>

And more work to do. Of course, if you're only getting 200 hit/day,
that's not a problem.

>> You have just shown you have absolutely no idea what load you're
>> putting on your server.
>
> That's not true, simply you don't know which structure I had. And you
> supposed I have a server doing all the job.
>

Oh, I understand. What do you think will happen when you get to 300
hits/day?

> For generating little (thumbnails) images from other scaled image. The
> resources used are really not so much. And the resources available by
> the servers whre enought to do not change in a measurable way the time
> delivering pages.
>

You really have no idea how many resources it takes, that's obvious.
But then when you're only getting 200 hits/day you can do anything on
your server.

> Tha fact is that having more machine more powerfull not doing nothing
> else that reescaling images when required in batch proceses is a waste
> of money and resources. In the other side, reescaling on the fly, of
> course, implies some more process but not noticable.
>
> Greetings
>
>

The fact is, forcing a server with more important things to do to
rescale images is a complete waste of money and resources. But when you
only get 200 hits/day you have the resources to waste.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
[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: Wed Oct 02 02:24:04 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04467 seconds