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 #178120 is a reply to message #178114] Mon, 14 May 2012 13:37 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
Senior Member
On 5/14/2012 8:25 AM, Shake wrote:
> 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.
>

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.

> 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.

>> 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.

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

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.

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.

> 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 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.

>> 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.
>

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.

> 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

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.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================

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 04:10:44 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04007 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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