Testing new images server

2006-02-10 18:59:05

#101

AD_Kensan: Member; +7|6982

bigelectricat wrote:
would creating an RSS feed for forum postings reduce the amount of traffic to the home page? i know i look at the home page to see new posts.

That would take off a bit of the load I guess. People would access the forums directly without going through the front page...

I don't know if you thought about this but I see no sign of it in the html source so here's an idea I had. A different approach of reducing the load on the stats pages is to work on the client side caching. There is no need for the client to get the site from the server unless there really was an update. Let me explain by showing you the very rudimentary source:

Code:

<head>
...
<meta name="DATE" content="<?php echo date()?>"> // provide correct date formater string 
<meta http-equiv="CACHE-CONTROL" content="PRIVATE">
<meta http-equiv="EXPIRES" content="<?php echo estimatedTimeForNextUpdate($PID)?>">
...
</head>
<body>
[snip]

This basically tells the browser (it needs to know the HTTP/1.1, does not work for HTTP/1.0 clients) that the cached site is valid till the time defined by the "EXPIRES"-Tag has passed and can therefore be loaded from the local cache. Here's some more info.

Sorry if this does not make much sense but I think Chuy understands what I am trying to say.

Last edited by AD_Kensan (2006-02-10 19:16:50)

2006-02-10 19:52:50

#102

TrevorP: Member; +0|6990

yeah thats a good Idea I think.

2006-02-10 23:50:24

#103

duk0r: Administrator; +306|6865|Austin, TX

Chuy,
For the images why not use 2+ servers and load balance between the servers using mod_rewrite or some other method. Prob the best way to do it without using any server resources is using round-robin dns for images.bf2s.com.

Feel free to PM me and I would be delighted to help you resolve your bandwidth issue.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/a3a6d1102d14bf2f7e266fba7f728dc2cc38b316.png

2006-02-11 03:37:09

#104

wayneakagod: Member; +17|6944

So I notice that you've taken the images away when you roll over the awards. Good! That should save a nice amount of bandwidth and there's no need to see the awards bigger anyway.

2006-02-11 08:17:41

#105

Aegis: Sailor with no BF2 Navy; +19|6942|I'm worldwide, beotch

It's too bad we can't use this as an excuse to get rid of everyone's stupid ass signatures.

Edit: and those homo userbars

Last edited by Aegis (2006-02-11 08:20:23)

2006-02-11 11:11:09

#106

Viper007Bond: Moderator Emeritus; +236|7002|Portland, OR, USA

duk0r wrote:
Chuy,
For the images why not use 2+ servers and load balance between the servers using mod_rewrite or some other method. Prob the best way to do it without using any server resources is using round-robin dns for images.bf2s.com.

As said, load isn't a issue, bandwidth is.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/044900892044e7fc95e599e832a086ae9bcd7efb.png

2006-02-11 15:08:42

#107

chuyskywalker: Admin; +2,439|7045|"Frisco"

i've super recompressed all the gifs in pngs -- seems to just about half the file size for the images in question. Most of the JPG's are still going to be jpgs at their size -- too detailed to reduce simliarily.

After the initial bw hit of getting the new images, this should help a great deal.

2006-02-11 15:33:14

#108

duk0r: Administrator; +306|6865|Austin, TX

Viper007Bond wrote:
duk0r wrote:
Chuy,
For the images why not use 2+ servers and load balance between the servers using mod_rewrite or some other method. Prob the best way to do it without using any server resources is using round-robin dns for images.bf2s.com.
As said, load isn't a issue, bandwidth is.

Actually the problem is with load. As chuy mentioned in his post "Apparently their servers aren't man enough to take the 250 requests per second". The bandwidth problem is transferring too much over a given month.
By having more then 1 server with different hosts you cut down on the amount of requests per server and the amount of bandwidth that is transferred per server per month.

2006-02-11 16:10:41

#109

duk0r: Administrator; +306|6865|Austin, TX

chuyskywalker wrote:
i've super recompressed all the gifs in pngs -- seems to just about half the file size for the images in question. Most of the JPG's are still going to be jpgs at their size -- too detailed to reduce simliarily.

After the initial bw hit of getting the new images, this should help a great deal.

Good job! That was going to be my next suggestion, I went to my player profile for the heck of it and checked to see what the size of the marine image is.

Image: http://static.bf2s.com/game-images/soldiers/0_3_0.jpg (29.61 KB (30324 bytes))

Since times are rough you can compress the images a little bit more without loosing much quality:

Image: http://duk0r.net/bf2s/0_3_0.jpg (7.48 KB (7658 bytes))

Side by side compare (1st is 29.61KB, 2nd is 7.48KB):

https://static.bf2s.com/game-images/soldiers/0_3_0.jpg

If you would like I could run a batch process to do the compression, to save you time.
Hope this helps Chuy.

Last edited by duk0r (2006-02-11 16:12:24)

2006-02-11 17:28:21

#110

chuyskywalker: Admin; +2,439|7045|"Frisco"

duk0r wrote:
Side by side compare (1st is 29.61KB, 2nd is 7.48KB)

Yes, this is one area where I'm still doing more compression -- I seem to have misplaced the source files to those soldier images (all, something like, 250 of them ) but I am sure I can find them again. Heh.

And yeah, 30 k is a weeee bit too much

2006-02-11 17:29:06

#111

chuyskywalker: Admin; +2,439|7045|"Frisco"

duk0r wrote:
Actually the problem is with load. As chuy mentioned in his post "Apparently their servers aren't man enough to take the 250 requests per second".

No, that just means their servers are wussy P.O.S.'s. This server handles it just fine. (the lag here comes from the contant query update.)

2006-02-11 17:31:46

#112

NM156: The H4xor Mod; +161|7044|North Texas

chuyskywalker wrote:
I seem to have misplaced the source files to those soldier images (all, something like, 250 of them ) but I am sure I can find them again. Heh.

If you saved the PM I sent you, they should be easy to find.

2006-02-11 18:10:13

#113

chuyskywalker: Admin; +2,439|7045|"Frisco"

Yup. Took a few moments, but I got 'em back.

Anyway, the reduction in those images was VERY serious. All in all, after all the GIF->PNG and JPG recompression the site images folder went from

- 12.9 MB

to

- 2.93 MB

I'm thinking this will be a very good thing.

2006-02-11 18:15:29

#114

EvilMonkeySlayer: Member; +82|6849

chuyskywalker wrote:
i've super recompressed all the gifs in pngs -- seems to just about half the file size for the images in question. Most of the JPG's are still going to be jpgs at their size -- too detailed to reduce simliarily.

After the initial bw hit of getting the new images, this should help a great deal.

I've noticed a lot of the GIFs are still GIFs are these todo? (for example bg.gif)

Anyway, hope it helps reduce the bandwidth usage.

2006-02-11 19:56:31

#115

bigelectricat: Member; +3|6889

chuyskywalker wrote:
i've super recompressed all the gifs in pngs -- seems to just about half the file size for the images in question. Most of the JPG's are still going to be jpgs at their size -- too detailed to reduce simliarily.

After the initial bw hit of getting the new images, this should help a great deal.

what program did you use to recompress the jpeg images? i tried to recreate the example shown by duk0r but my images came out larger. i would like to know your settings for recompression. im just curious. thanks!

2006-02-12 11:42:25

#116

[ups]erazor: Member; +0|6935|Rottweil, Germany

EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
I've noticed a lot of the GIFs are still GIFs are these todo? (for example bg.gif)

GIFs are smaller if the image is small or has few colors.
JPGs were invented to compress real pictures, that have tons of gradients.
GIF should be the prefect match for the background image.

2006-02-12 13:16:19

#117

FreekBoy: Member; +1|7038|Michigan

Chuy,

I sent ya a PM yesterday, not sure if you got it. Let me know.

2006-02-12 13:31:27

#118

ReVmAn: Member; +0|6869|Where politics is not needed

just wanna say that it's gr8 to see ya'll helping out here. Gr8 to read Keep it up!!

2006-02-13 02:12:42

#119

ai024: Member; +0|6877|sverdlovsk-45, russia

er. i wanted to say - don't be TOO excited, 'cuz images are supposed to be cached, so server load won't decrease significally because of image optimization, IMHO.

Last edited by ai024 (2006-02-13 02:13:28)

2006-02-13 08:09:19

#120

dub: Member; +0|6885|Austria

I think the flash graph didn't help things. For me at least, it reloaded everytime I press any new link. I guess it's because it's dynamic or what not. Ditch the flash graph and see if that saves any respectable amount of bandwidth?

2006-02-13 21:37:26

#121

puchodog1977: Banned; +0|6944

MajorHoulahan_MASH wrote:
chuyskywalker wrote:
I've moved all the static content for the site (CSS, JS, gifs, jpegs, pngs, etc) over to another host.

. 1) Take some load of this machine.
. 2) Take some load of this machine.
. 3) [del]Running[/del] Ran out of bandwidth on this machine.

If it works out, I'll post my hot, hot affliate link to the host where I am getting 1TB of transfer per month for $10/mo. !
Chuy, i am a bit concerned with the moving of all static content. It may take the load of one machine, but it might create a huge/too much "traffic" to get all content into one webpage (display) again ?

Question: are the "Forums" and the "BF2 Stats" on TWO different machines/hardware platform now?

If not, i would suggest:
1. to get the BF2Stats ( with all static content) on your new machine , and at ISP service provider nr 1 :the one you were using till recently), but without the Forum , FAQ , WIKI links etcetera !
2. and get all FORUM stuff ( text and search) functions on ISP nr 2 (the new one)

I dont know if this split-up in over 2 providers (!) would mean making a new website for the FORUM or require major software/HTML-programming, but its just an wild idea that might help.

Keep cool and good luck.

2006-03-05 08:10:56

#122

Gooners: Wiki Contributor; +2,700|6829

Yup

2006-06-04 21:38:47

#123

Nesa-01: Member; +4|6734

why does my sig say 15% when it should be around 49-50%?

2006-06-04 23:24:51

#124

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6824|UK

I get this on UBAR. I dont know if it is anything to do with this

https://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5449/untitled92re.png

2006-06-05 08:25:07

#125

Dr0pped: Member; +8|6951|Ontario, Canada

Nesa-01 wrote:
why does my sig say 15% when it should be around 49-50%?

The 17% is related to the difference between your current rank and the next one. Specifically, you have scored 2063 points of the 12,000 needed for the next rank. That is where the 17% is calculated from.

BF2S Forums Testing new images server

bigelectricat wrote:

Code:

duk0r wrote:

Viper007Bond wrote:

duk0r wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

duk0r wrote:

duk0r wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:

MajorHoulahan_MASH wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

Nesa-01 wrote:

Board footer