X3Photo Gallery Forums

florent wrote:hello Karl but get an other problem on my web site : http://www.bsbd.fr
On the panel, I create new folder Guggenheim& uploade photo with the panel
The folfer page display right with all the photos*:
Bur, when i try to visualise any photo, get the message "The image could not loaded" and after new windows with

Exactly what page/image do you get the error? Sounds like a memory error anyway ... You still get it?

Something wrong with your server, and/or they are providing LESS memory than is stated in diagnostics. Who is the host? This is an image error:
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w1024-q90/2.n ... 030862.JPG Your server claims you have 256MB at disposal, which is 268435456 bytes ... much more than "25165824 bytes". Looks like you have been virtually limited at 25MB.
http://www.bsbd.fr/?diagnostics

I can't claim to understand quite what is going on with your server, but you need to ask them. Sorry, but you server needs to deliver at certain standards to run X3 properly.

florent wrote:I note my server restriction, but as I say, is't the firt time I use the upload & resize funtion from the panel.

It's not got anything to do with the panel upload resizer. It's just the fact that your server can perhaps only resize images to below 800px ...

florent wrote:I delete all the concerning photos on my server, resize myself the photos ans use Filezilla for the upload ... and it's working fine now.

Hmm that is REALLY strange, never heard or seen anything like that before. The images you have now are the same size as before, but now it works ... Your server must be confused by something, but I can't say what it is ...

If you can give me panel access, I would like to have a look ... I would make a hidden folder to test a few uploads.

Hi Florent. I did some extensive tests on your server with 4 images:

manual.jpg - resized to 1600px from my desktop. Not resized on upload.
resizer_yours.jpeg - resized to 1600px from your resizer uploader.
resizer_mine.jpg - resized to 1600px from MY local panel resizer upload.
resizer_yours_lowq.jpeg - resized to 1600px but with very low compression.

First of all, all checks show that there is no difference in these images on the threshold of what your server manages to resize. Your limited server manages to serve this specific image at 768px width. (I found this exact value by test-and-fail to see at exactly what number your server fails).
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w768-q90/temp/manual.jpg
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w768-q90/temp ... r_mine.jpg
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w768-q90/temp ... yours.jpeg
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w768-q90/temp ... _lowq.jpeg

All images above 768 fail:
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w769-q90/temp/manual.jpg
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w769-q90/temp ... r_mine.jpg
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w769-q90/temp ... yours.jpeg
http://www.bsbd.fr/render/w769-q90/temp ... _lowq.jpeg

So first of all, let me just conclude that your server is very limited. It says 256MB in your php.ini diagnostics, but it seems there is a virtual limit set to 24117248 bytes (25 MB).

Also, we can rule out that there is anything different in your uploader than mine, as resizer_mine.jpg vs resizer_yours.jpeg is same. We can also rule out that is is related to image file size and/or quality, as the same behavior is exhibited on resizer_yours_lowq.jpeg

So what is the difference between the images you uploaded?
This is the question that puzzles me also. Did you upload by FTP? What application do you use for resizing? I can only imagine two scenarios:

1) For some reason, your server dismisses the virtual limitation if your files were uploaded by FTP user. This could be related to security.
2) Your locally resized images have some super-powered stripping features that lowers the memory consumption when resizing images.

Only your server
I also tested all images locally, and this only happens on your server ... I also have 256MB in my testing environment, and all images fail at some point, but they are always the same between images resized from the uploader, and images resized manually.

This is why I lean towards scenario #1, which would explain everything. According to the output from the images that fail, you have 24117248 bytes limitation. If that is so, then your manual resized images should fail also ... but they don't. Why don't they fail? There must be a difference in the memory provided to resize the different images.

As you can clearly see in my tests, there isn't any difference whatsoever in a file uploaded with- or without resizing. If you give me FTP, I could test that.

I think we can conclude that your server provides different memory for different users. Files uploaded by FTP are not limited to the same memory as files uploaded by the WWW-user (panel).