View Full Version : RFF Gallery Storage Update
CameraQuest
10-27-2008, 11:34
10/27/08
We need to look at this subject again because storage, or the lack of it, is becoming a problem. Rather than using a script to delete pics older than a certain date, I'm going to try a different approach and see how well it works for us in practice.
To get the most out of the our storage, I am reducing future uploads to the galleries, attachments, and classifieds from 300kb to 200kb, immediately saving up to 1/3 storage on future upload file space. On my own site 200 kb images take up most of the page and I don't see any reason for larger file size than that.
Member's gallery storage will be limited to 60mb per member for the time being. In most cases this far exceeds member usage. But some members will have to reduce their gallery images. I prefer members to choose which images are deleted, than an automated script to delete images. Members with over 60mb of storage will be emailed and given until December 1st to reduce their gallery size.
Next step, if need be, is deleting galleries if members have not been active in the last year.
Once these changes take place, we'll take a look at how well they work and see if further measures need to be taken. Of course these solutions will not please everyone, but we need to find the best solutions within the current storage capabilities. The way our site is set up, accessing storage from other locations is not practical.
Thanks to all.
Stephen
wlewisiii
10-27-2008, 11:53
I've been in the process of moving all of my online works to Google's Picassa Web http://picasaweb.google.com since it's 1) free 2) for up to 1gb storage (fee after that if you want it) and 3) a heck of lot nicer interface than flickr. Once I'm satisfied I've moved all I need to, I'll delete my gallery here for you Stephen.
Not going away though, sorry ;)
William
pesphoto
10-27-2008, 12:03
I mostly post pics in the W/NW threads now, the pics are hosted on the server for my own website. My gallery is close to empty.
Todd.Hanz
10-27-2008, 12:05
Is there a way to delete most of or all my gallery without going image by image?
Todd
pesphoto
10-27-2008, 12:08
Is there a way to delete most of or all my gallery without going image by image?
Todd
unfortunately I dont think so. I went one by one.
Todd.Hanz
10-27-2008, 12:40
please zap anything in my gallery older than 6 months =-= that will cut back a lot of storage - you can do it from your admin panel -- worse come to worse, empty my gallery and I'll start over - there's some old stinkers in there
Me too, please erase my gallery and I'll start over...no time to do them one by one.
Todd
mabelsound
10-27-2008, 12:52
I haven't been able to upload anything to the gallery for months--4 images are stuck in my queue and nothing has been able to dislodge them. I gave up a long time ago!
The other problem with this change is that, most of the time, we want to be able to display larger images. If we're just showing one another pics of our cameras, it's not too important, but time after time I find myself wishing I could look at a 1000-pixel-wide version of other members' stuff. Especially when we're comparing film stocks or the results from different digital sensors. As a result, I generally just direct people to my flickr page, and have been visiting other members' flickr pages too, instead of visiting the galleries here.
I'd vote for INCREASING the maximum file size, but LIMITING the number of photos we can upload. Devoting our galleries here to hi-res versions of only our very best pictures would be wonderful.
wlewisiii
10-27-2008, 12:59
What she said.
William
mabelsound
10-27-2008, 13:01
all you have to do do get stuck images out of the queque is to hit upload without selecting any images and it will push them thru
I know...doesn't work.
What she said.
William
If you mean me...I'm a dude. ;)
wlewisiii
10-27-2008, 13:41
If you mean me...I'm a dude. ;)
Oops. Time for another trip to Brain Farts Anonymous... :bang:
William
Todd.Hanz
10-27-2008, 14:13
If you mean me...I'm a dude. ;)
dude, your a dude? ;)
Todd
mabelsound
10-27-2008, 14:16
dude, your a dude? ;)
Todd
Totally, dude.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2975770955_c768ffc481.jpg
Don't'cha wish you could see 1000 pixels of my sexy hotness?
chris91387
10-27-2008, 14:19
do what you need to do, stephen, but it would be a shame to see some of the older rff pictures go away just because the photographer is no longer active. there's really some great stuff from the past.
- chris
I haven't been able to upload anything to the gallery for months--4 images are stuck in my queue and nothing has been able to dislodge them. I gave up a long time ago! .
The same happens to me. I always get messages saying that I have exceeded my daily upload, even if I try to upload small files.
Two messages about this to the webmaster - no reply... :(
OTOH no problem in uploading attachments:)
Any solutions?? Any sugestions ?
Thanks
Joao
Tuolumne
10-27-2008, 14:27
I don't understand why this is an issue. You can buy 1.5 terabyte disk drives for well under $500 today. Why not just throw one of those into the mix when storage starts to get tight?
/T
mabelsound
10-27-2008, 14:34
It could be that there are bandwidth limits on the server Stephen is using.
jan normandale
10-28-2008, 07:16
Re bulk 'deletions' I did mine by deleting the individual folders. For my shots that were not in folders then I had to delete those individually.
I don't understand why this is an issue. You can buy 1.5 terabyte disk drives for well under $500 today. Why not just throw one of those into the mix when storage starts to get tight?
/T
heh.. I hear this all the time at work.
It's not the cost of the drive itself it's the support for the storage space, the bandwidth and time that it takes to back up the stuff stored on the storage space, the people who monitor the storage space, etc. etc. etc.
The costs associated with storage is always a lot more than just the cost of the physical disk itself - not to mention the fact that it could be that the server that's hosting this joint is not just a box that's been thrown together but it could be a rack mount puppy instead.
Cheers,
Dave
ETA: And I believe that 200kb is more than ample if people knew how to save correctly for web viewing - if folks don't want to lose detail etc - print out the image or show 100% crops of the image rather than the whole image.
ClaremontPhoto
10-29-2008, 03:15
I am a loyal customer of Ffordes because many years ago I visited their (old) shop and asked about a particular camera. The shop assistant showed me photos from that very camera.
To sell cameras at CameraQuest you might consider displaying even more photos at RFF; not fewer photos.
Tuolumne
10-29-2008, 14:10
heh.. I hear this all the time at work.
It's not the cost of the drive itself it's the support for the storage space, the bandwidth and time that it takes to back up the stuff stored on the storage space, the people who monitor the storage space, etc. etc. etc.
The costs associated with storage is always a lot more than just the cost of the physical disk itself - not to mention the fact that it could be that the server that's hosting this joint is not just a box that's been thrown together but it could be a rack mount puppy instead.
Cheers,
Dave
ETA: And I believe that 200kb is more than ample if people knew how to save correctly for web viewing - if folks don't want to lose detail etc - print out the image or show 100% crops of the image rather than the whole image.
Bandwidth? What bandwidth? Most of the time the photos are just sitting there. If there's more of them, that doesn't necessarily translate into more bandwidth. They are still only being viewed one at a time. The other points could be an issue, I don't know since Steven isn't saying. I guess it depends on how much you want to spend on the site and how important you think the galleries are.
/T
I haven't been able to upload anything to the gallery for months--4 images are stuck in my queue and nothing has been able to dislodge them. I gave up a long time ago!
The other problem with this change is that, most of the time, we want to be able to display larger images. If we're just showing one another pics of our cameras, it's not too important, but time after time I find myself wishing I could look at a 1000-pixel-wide version of other members' stuff. Especially when we're comparing film stocks or the results from different digital sensors. As a result, I generally just direct people to my flickr page, and have been visiting other members' flickr pages too, instead of visiting the galleries here.
I'd vote for INCREASING the maximum file size, but LIMITING the number of photos we can upload. Devoting our galleries here to hi-res versions of only our very best pictures would be wonderful.
I encounter the same problem till now it is not resolved.
all you have to do do get stuck images out of the queque is to hit upload without selecting any images and it will push them thru
Tried but it does not work. Any other suggestion?
The same happens to me. I always get messages saying that I have exceeded my daily upload, even if I try to upload small files.
Two messages about this to the webmaster - no reply... :(
OTOH no problem in uploading attachments:)
Any solutions?? Any sugestions ?
Thanks
Joao
I also send a PM to them but no response yet.
Migracer
11-06-2008, 01:37
Since many of us have us have our own places, such as Picasa, a thumb nail with a link to the file on Picasa would allow a higher resolution view and free up space on the RFF server.
Migracer
11-06-2008, 04:15
In an effort to do my part to help I started to delete some files and consolidate others. When I first started downloading files I would chose more than one gallery, not knowing that instead of one copy with tags to the associated gallery the system would crate (and still does) a separate copy of the picture for each category. I remembered this when I started to delete some of my early downloads and some I had to delete three times. A reprogram of the file system so that only one copy of the picture exist would go a long way to opening up more room. I still think the better answer is the option of the system download have the option of a thumb nail with a redirect to the members Flicker, Picasa, or personal website file of the image.:angel:
In an effort to do my part to help I started to delete some files and consolidate others. When I first started downloading files I would chose more than one gallery, not knowing that instead of one copy with tags to the associated gallery the system would crate (and still does) a separate copy of the picture for each category. I remembered this when I started to delete some of my early downloads and some I had to delete three times. A reprogram of the file system so that only one copy of the picture exist would go a long way to opening up more room. I still think the better answer is the option of the system download have the option of a thumb nail with a redirect to the members Flicker, Picasa, or personal website file of the image.:angel:
in the gallery, members can comment on the photos. this is the item i like most of the gallery. in other forum sites, galleries do not seem to be so open about comments or even no comment.
how do make it in the way that gallery appears those photos (e.g. from flickr) and yet not utilizing any harddisk space from the gallery?
wlewisiii
11-08-2008, 19:17
Has anyone found a way to bulk delete from the gallery? If not, Stephen, could you please go ahead and delete mine? I've moved completely over to Picassa-Web and everything I have here that I really want online is there.
Thanks,
William
ClaremontPhoto
11-09-2008, 00:15
If you have organized your photos into categories (galleries? folders?...) then deleting the category deletes all the photos in it.
CameraQuest
11-09-2008, 15:09
We have come up with what we believe is a fair and doable process for helping conserve disk space on the galleries: one technique to combine with others.
The plan is to remove the larger images that also have a medium size image saved as well. In other words, when you click on a thumbnail in the gallery, you are then shown the main photo page for the thumbnail you clicked on. The photo displayed, is typically 600 pixels wide sometimes larger. If you see a link below that photo that says “Click on image to view larger image” this means that there is an even larger image stored on the server for viewing. We plan to be be removing those larger images, only leaving the photos you see on the main photo page.
Stephen
Just wanted to let you know that I'm removing things and will continue to do so... not being able to post is a good incentive!!!
ClaremontPhoto
11-22-2008, 10:15
Wasn't 'MP Guy' called 'JT' just a week ago?
He's a chameleon if he's the same person.
Perhaps he's joined the Military Police, hence MP?
plummerl
11-23-2008, 09:58
We have come up with what we believe is a fair and doable process for helping conserve disk space on the galleries: one technique to combine with others.
The plan is to remove the larger images that also have a medium size image saved as well. In other words, when you click on a thumbnail in the gallery, you are then shown the main photo page for the thumbnail you clicked on. The photo displayed, is typically 600 pixels wide sometimes larger. If you see a link below that photo that says “Click on image to view larger image” this means that there is an even larger image stored on the server for viewing. We plan to be be removing those larger images, only leaving the photos you see on the main photo page.
Stephen
Besides the file size limit, is there a max pixel count on dimensions, as well as further file compression? I notice that uploading an image with a size of 180KB and max dimension (width) of 900 pixels, it ends up being displayed with a size of 72KB and a width that looks like 600. I have searched everywhere, but I can't see any other requirement than the file size, unless your reference to 600 (above) is actually a requirement. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Thanks!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.