Search…

X3 Photo Gallery Support Forums

Search…
 
marco963
Experienced
Topic Author
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 Oct 2006, 10:22

21 Jul 2008, 15:31

pain wrote:No, it's not that yet, Karl released it halway into what been planned for next update, you will be personally informed, as i said, because of vast image array, sorry for false alarm :/
Aaaah Nick, I saw a new "folderdata.xml" file in each sub-folder and I hoped it was the right update :)
Waiting for the final fix is like a chinese torture :lol:
 
User avatar
mjau-mjau
X3 Wizard
Posts: 13992
Joined: 30 Sep 2006, 03:37

29 Jul 2008, 23:49

I believe this issue was fixed in the release 20080728 -
https://www.photo.gallery/v2docs/articles/useCache
 
marco963
Experienced
Topic Author
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 Oct 2006, 10:22

30 Jul 2008, 08:05

mjau-mjau wrote:I believe this issue was fixed in the release 20080728 -
https://www.photo.gallery/v2docs/articles/useCache
Karl, the problem of thumbnails creation seems to be OK (in my tests I got no timeout errors), but the overall performance problem is still present.

I have loaded a subset of my entire gallery (less than 50% of it) and you can check the time requested to load simply the home page:
http://www.marcobrivio.com/Portfolio/

I thought you were still working to fix this issue.
Marco
 
User avatar
Nick
Imagevue Hitman
Posts: 2872
Joined: 02 May 2006, 09:13

30 Jul 2008, 08:38

Sorry Marco, could you give us ftp access to your site? I want to do some tests there. Hard to tell like it is now what's wrong. How many pictures you have btw?
firedev.com
 
User avatar
mjau-mjau
X3 Wizard
Posts: 13992
Joined: 30 Sep 2006, 03:37

30 Jul 2008, 08:38

Problem here is that your script is not caching at all ... Trust me, if it did, it would run much faster - Like in our demo www.photo.gallery/soda/

I think pain will get in touch with you to try and find out about your specific issue.
 
marco963
Experienced
Topic Author
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 Oct 2006, 10:22

05 Aug 2008, 04:09

mjau-mjau wrote:Problem here is that your script is not caching at all ... Trust me, if it did, it would run much faster - Like in our demo www.photo.gallery/soda/

I think pain will get in touch with you to try and find out about your specific issue.

Just to let everybody know, I have solved my performance problems, upgrading my webhosting services to a virtual server, therefore it was not a software issue but a webserver issue.

Thanks to all,
Marco
 
User avatar
Nick
Imagevue Hitman
Posts: 2872
Joined: 02 May 2006, 09:13

05 Aug 2008, 08:56

Told ya! \o/
firedev.com
 
ckurtis
Posts: 7
Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 08:52

virtual server

08 Aug 2008, 09:40

Can you explain what a virtual server is? I'm using godaddy as our host now, and they said we have a shared server.

Sometimes it takes up to 90 seconds before our gallery controls pops up, other times seems like only 10 seconds. We do have alot (thousands) of pictures on the site www.historysend.com/iv

Godaddy said a dedicated server would cost us around $80/m more. Is there some setting, or another lower cost solution to speed our imagevuex up?

Thanks

Chris
 
marco963
Experienced
Topic Author
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 Oct 2006, 10:22

Re: virtual server

08 Aug 2008, 09:56

ckurtis wrote:Can you explain what a virtual server is? I'm using godaddy as our host now, and they said we have a shared server.

Sometimes it takes up to 90 seconds before our gallery controls pops up, other times seems like only 10 seconds. We do have alot (thousands) of pictures on the site www.historysend.com/iv

Godaddy said a dedicated server would cost us around $80/m more. Is there some setting, or another lower cost solution to speed our imagevuex up?

Thanks

Chris

Hi Chris, I'm not an expert, but the obvious disadvantages of a basic webhosting solution over a virtual server are due to the usual high number of websites hosted on the same physical machine and the low bandwidth.

A virtual server is a powerful server shared among a low number of websites (on my previous webserver my website was hosted together with other 700), with a guaranteed minimum bandwidth.

As I wrote before, to get Imagevue start, I had to wait one minute or more, experiencing nasty server timeouts. Of course the provider couldn't always guarantee decent performance with this kind of cheap subscription.
Now everything is fine, you can verify, I have loaded almost 6000 images with resolution of 800x650: http://www.marcobrivio.com/Portfolio/

About costs, virtual servers are between normal shared webhosting and dedicated servers. I now pay 12 € per month (before I paid 24 euros per year), but I think this upgrade was absolutely necessary.
My provider is Aruba (http://www.aruba.it), the biggest in Italy.

Hoping it helps,
Marco
 
marco963
Experienced
Topic Author
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 Oct 2006, 10:22

Re: virtual server

08 Aug 2008, 10:03

marco963 wrote:
ckurtis wrote:Can you explain what a virtual server is? I'm using godaddy as our host now, and they said we have a shared server.

Sometimes it takes up to 90 seconds before our gallery controls pops up, other times seems like only 10 seconds. We do have alot (thousands) of pictures on the site www.historysend.com/iv

Godaddy said a dedicated server would cost us around $80/m more. Is there some setting, or another lower cost solution to speed our imagevuex up?

Thanks

Chris

Hi Chris, I'm not an expert, but the obvious disadvantages of a basic webhosting solution over a virtual server are due to the usual high number of websites hosted on the same physical machine and the low bandwidth.

A virtual server is a powerful server shared among a low number of websites (on my previous webserver my website was hosted together with other 700), with a guaranteed minimum bandwidth.

As I wrote before, to get Imagevue start, I had to wait one minute or more, experiencing nasty server timeouts. Of course the provider couldn't always guarantee decent performance with this kind of cheap subscription.
Now everything is fine, you can verify, I have loaded almost 6000 images with resolution of 800x650: http://www.marcobrivio.com/Portfolio/

About costs, virtual servers are between normal shared webhosting and dedicated servers. I now pay 12 € per month (before I paid 24 euros per year), but I think this upgrade was absolutely necessary and I'm happy that Karl and Nick helped me to solve this issue.
My provider is Aruba (http://www.aruba.it), the biggest in Italy.

Hoping it helps,
Marco
 
User avatar
mjau-mjau
X3 Wizard
Posts: 13992
Joined: 30 Sep 2006, 03:37

09 Aug 2008, 08:44

You do not need a dedicated server(although that would definitely be good!) - Shared servers are fine. We run our demos on a shared server! Performance issues are mostly related to specific server settings ...

I believe we fixed an issue the other day: Someone simply moved from windows hosting to linux hosting within the same server hosting company, and the difference was night and day.

I am not an expert in this field, and I think Pain may be able to fill in some additional advice. All I can say, is that having to wait 90 seconds(!) is simply wrong, even if you have a thousand pictures. The CACHE system we used should speed up performance exponetially, but it is often very slow the first time you view the gallery, because it is then it actually caches. Every time you click "Clear Cache" from the admin menu(which is sometimes required), you will have to re-cache from the gallery frontend, and that is often slow.

If you check your gallery a second time after cache is created, and it's still slow, then the issue is related to your server. Either it is not able to save cache, or there are some unusual settings on server hogging down the performance.

I did check your gallery, and I can confirm that it is horribly slow. The following script takes ages to load, although it should be mostly cached:
http://www.historysend.com/iv/?a=folders

What version of the gallery are you using? Perhaps you can provide us with login to your admin, and perhaps also FTP? That would help us look into your specific performance issue ...
 
User avatar
Nick
Imagevue Hitman
Posts: 2872
Joined: 02 May 2006, 09:13

09 Aug 2008, 15:27

We've been exchanging private messages for a while now, the verdict is: either update hosting plan or change hosting, Marco success story gives good example.

You have sorta large directory tree, but with caching enabled they all should be checked in less than second. What more funny that sometimes it works fast - that means some resources which been in use by somebody else been granted to you, but thats not serious approach anyway.
firedev.com
 
ckurtis
Posts: 7
Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 08:52

Anyone find the glitch?

31 Aug 2008, 12:36

We did move up to a virtual dedicated server, and the wait is down from 40 seconds to about 25 seconds. Pain was nice enough to upload all our files to their server and it loads within 2 seconds instead of over 20.

When you say is caching enabled, where can I find that? We now have a unix virtual dedicated server, they say we have 256 ram with up to 1gig bursting.

Is imagevue particularly heavy using ram or some other resource when there are alot of pictures or folders? I went back thru this thread and I still see some of the links to galleries opening up really slow. Is there anyone who found a solution on their server that wasn't related to shared vs dedicated? I'd hate to have to shell out an extra $50/m just to find out the problem was flipping a (virtual) switch somewhere.

http://68.178.145.35/ is our virtual dedicated
http://www.historysend.com/iv is our shared server

I'm not a programmer--I'm a musician :o) So I'm trying to hack thru this best I can. We are on Red Hat Fedora Core 7 , and use something called PLESK as an managing console interface.

There's nothing more frustrating than a great gift that you just can't seem to get the wrapping paper off of.

-Chris
 
User avatar
Nick
Imagevue Hitman
Posts: 2872
Joined: 02 May 2006, 09:13

01 Sep 2008, 04:12

When you say is caching enabled, where can I find that? We now have a unix virtual dedicated server, they say we have 256 ram with up to 1gig bursting.
When we say caching enabled - thats in admin in config, it just bakes the file counts and thumbnail sizes into folderdata.xml files for each dir. It's enabled by default.

I think 256mb is not enough theese days, they probably run some old pentium3 or something.
I'm not a programmer--I'm a musician Surprised) So I'm trying to hack thru this best I can.
I think the best thing you can do is just change to some professional hosting with nice support who can deliver some modern computer, we dont need anything extraordinary, just you have vast array of images and probably your hard drive is just slow.

It runs fast on Pentium D with 2G or Ram and usual hard drive here with your image library.
firedev.com
 
User avatar
mjau-mjau
X3 Wizard
Posts: 13992
Joined: 30 Sep 2006, 03:37

03 Sep 2008, 09:48

We use a shared server ourselves for our demo(which is heavily visited), and except for the initial cache load(after updating new files or folders), the gallery always loads swiftly. Even under the cache procedure, the gallery only takes a few seconds.

I have to generally agree with pain. If you go with a professional server provider with shared server, there is no reason to not get good speeds. After the admin has "cached" image-counts and thumbnail properties into XML, the script that runs is relatively lightweight.