- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 23,073
- Reaction score
- 18,727
- Location
- NJ (The nice part)
- Guild Total
- 112
For the better!
First my problem: everyone LOVES attachments and since I enabled the feature in 2000 y'all have uploaded 48,818 images for a total of 20.67 GiB of disk space consumed. Woof!
While everyone likes to think that "disk is cheap" that's not really the case when it comes to hosted virtual machines, and those images are consuming 15% of the available disk space on the server which makes LTG attachments the single largest consumer of disk space on my system which includes 22 websites! At the rate it's being consumed the disk will be full in only a year or two, and that's not great.
Now your problem: Have you ever tried to upload an image from your phone or computer only to have the system tell you that it's too large? That's driven me *crazy* since I enabled the feature because I couldn't figure out why it was happeneing.
What I've changed: First, I discovered that the largest image that could be uploaded due to a default (and thus not written) limit of the software was 20 Megapixels. Given the current state of mobile devices that wasn't cutting it and that's why we were seeing those errors. I have changed this setting to allow up to 60 Megapixel images which should be fine unless you've got one of those wacky phones that allows 200MP images in which case turn that off because it's dumb.
Second, I have lowered the size that the system will resize images to. Originally, since I couldn't figure out the first problem, I set the system to resize to a max of 2000 pixels on the longest side with a max file size of 3MB. That adds up when you've got 48,000 images! I have reset this to 1600 pixels on the longest side with a max file size of 1.5MB.
To test this I made a 56MP image (10,000x5624 and 8MB) of my friend's Starfire VII and dragged it into this window. The system took it and resized it to this, which is 1600x900 and 259KB.
I certainly think that looks good enough for a website, but if we run into any issues with quality then we can revisit the settings and tweak accordingly.
In the future I may have the system convert images to webp, but that's not currently supported so it's not yet an option.
Anyway, that's what I did all day.
First my problem: everyone LOVES attachments and since I enabled the feature in 2000 y'all have uploaded 48,818 images for a total of 20.67 GiB of disk space consumed. Woof!
While everyone likes to think that "disk is cheap" that's not really the case when it comes to hosted virtual machines, and those images are consuming 15% of the available disk space on the server which makes LTG attachments the single largest consumer of disk space on my system which includes 22 websites! At the rate it's being consumed the disk will be full in only a year or two, and that's not great.
Now your problem: Have you ever tried to upload an image from your phone or computer only to have the system tell you that it's too large? That's driven me *crazy* since I enabled the feature because I couldn't figure out why it was happeneing.
What I've changed: First, I discovered that the largest image that could be uploaded due to a default (and thus not written) limit of the software was 20 Megapixels. Given the current state of mobile devices that wasn't cutting it and that's why we were seeing those errors. I have changed this setting to allow up to 60 Megapixel images which should be fine unless you've got one of those wacky phones that allows 200MP images in which case turn that off because it's dumb.
Second, I have lowered the size that the system will resize images to. Originally, since I couldn't figure out the first problem, I set the system to resize to a max of 2000 pixels on the longest side with a max file size of 3MB. That adds up when you've got 48,000 images! I have reset this to 1600 pixels on the longest side with a max file size of 1.5MB.
To test this I made a 56MP image (10,000x5624 and 8MB) of my friend's Starfire VII and dragged it into this window. The system took it and resized it to this, which is 1600x900 and 259KB.
I certainly think that looks good enough for a website, but if we run into any issues with quality then we can revisit the settings and tweak accordingly.
In the future I may have the system convert images to webp, but that's not currently supported so it's not yet an option.
Anyway, that's what I did all day.