TWim - TWf-exclusive image uploading site
- Thread starter Jace
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Doot.
Got an email from my webhost:
It has been restarted 6087 times in the last 30 days, aka just shy of 8 times per hour, constantly. From what I can think of, TWim is almost certainly the biggest "troublemaker" here, specifically the image resizing being the heaviest part of it.
This'd be the cause for most of the failed resizes and random "Service not available" (or similar) error messages, plus images occasionally failing to load.
So I'd like to put it to the people who mainly use it, aka you lot. I'll have a look at if I can find a more efficient way to resize stuff (currently using ImageMagick), but if that won't do, there're few options:
Though now that I think of it, I could also take a look into scripts which would resize 'em on the clientside, but browser support would become a far bigger issue then. Most of 'em these days care less about following standards and more of making up their own.
Got an email from my webhost:
It has been restarted 6087 times in the last 30 days, aka just shy of 8 times per hour, constantly. From what I can think of, TWim is almost certainly the biggest "troublemaker" here, specifically the image resizing being the heaviest part of it.
This'd be the cause for most of the failed resizes and random "Service not available" (or similar) error messages, plus images occasionally failing to load.
So I'd like to put it to the people who mainly use it, aka you lot. I'll have a look at if I can find a more efficient way to resize stuff (currently using ImageMagick), but if that won't do, there're few options:
- Keep it as it is, with occasionally failing page/file loads or resize failures
- Remove the autoresize-feature, which means you'd need to resize 'em yourself to more forum-appropriate limits
- Upgrade to a VPS. Dreamhost offers couple different tiers, cheapest being $15 per month. Even that would take the yearly upkeep from €120 to over €300.
Though now that I think of it, I could also take a look into scripts which would resize 'em on the clientside, but browser support would become a far bigger issue then. Most of 'em these days care less about following standards and more of making up their own.
Might be a good first (temporary?) test. I chucked a ticket at the hosting company, asking if there's a way I can keep track of how often it has used too many resources and had to be restarted. If they'll offer me a way, it'll be easy as to find out. I'm already looking into alternative option, will test out tomorrow if it'd make a notable difference.
As it is, I don't really have a reliable way to tell if it'd be "fixed" or not
As it is, I don't really have a reliable way to tell if it'd be "fixed" or not
I haven't had any issues at all except for the one I contacted you about. Otherwise it never fails. Keep it the way it is, I say.
It doesn't work on regular Chrome either, but it does work on the iPhone Chrome app.
Opened your avatar in a new tab: https://tw.greywool.com/i/pxWc6,oDQuj,kq6jH, gave it a few refreshes, wurx.
See if doing that makes it change on your browsers. If not, try Ctrl-F5 cache-bypassing refreshes. If that works, it's the browsers caching the first image they spot without checking if it's changed.
See if doing that makes it change on your browsers. If not, try Ctrl-F5 cache-bypassing refreshes. If that works, it's the browsers caching the first image they spot without checking if it's changed.
Yes, that seems the be the case. Opening in a new tab and cache-bypassing refreshes both work just fine, regular browsing around and refreshing doesn't. Most browsers cache the first image which kinda defeats the impact of such a feature (it still works but far more infrequently in the typical user experience). I assume The Doge of Benis wants it to change whenever people browse through the forum. Is there any way to add a flag on your end that'll stop it from being cached in such a fashion? It's easy for me to fix it on my end but all of the fresh recruits from teh forumz pr0nz will still have the issue.
It was actually already set to never send a 304 status message and sends 200 every time. So it's the browser which doesn't respect the headers returned by the server. But, I've changed it to use current time as the file's "last modified" time, which should further try to force the browser to redownload it.
Lemme know if it's doing it now.
Lemme know if it's doing it now.
Seems to work now, I tried it on multiple computers and browsers just to make sure.
