OMG = WIN!around 5.5 million terobytes
Dedicated Server coming and Major V2 Update!
#41
Posted 27 February 2005 - 08:14 AM
#42
Posted 27 February 2005 - 09:17 AM
please tell me u know i was just kidding,Feb 27 2005, 01:14 PM]
OMG = WIN!around 5.5 million terobytes
#43
Posted 27 February 2005 - 10:08 AM
lol.. Now thats funny.around 5.5 million terobytes
but thats that damn monkey we employ to sort through the dead links, he can't stop looking at the potw
But back to the thread. Everything still seems to be loading great so Im guessing Ty got it all fixed up great then.
Regards,
Jason
#44 _*TySoft_*
Posted 27 February 2005 - 03:24 PM
Been an issue literally forever with Apache. 32-bit builds of Apache (1.3 or 2.0) don't currently handle "large" files. Apache child processes will die trying to write logs which have reached 2GB in size. And the obvious place for Apache to report the problem is -- you guessed it -- the log file that we can't write to.Curious TySoft how does a log file slow a site down? Never heard of this before.Found the culprit - was right under my nose (log file >2gb) - will be now auto rotating logs & shouldnt have any further trouble!
Guess it works lol as P2L is loading better.
This is also the reason 32 bit builds of Apache can't serve any files >2gb for downloadng.
#45
Posted 27 February 2005 - 05:08 PM
#46
Posted 27 February 2005 - 10:43 PM
Currently over 300GB a monthHow much GB of bandwidth does p2l use a month?
I am guessing somewhere around 200 or so?
Faken
#47
Posted 01 March 2005 - 04:46 PM
Thanks for that, never knew this.Been an issue literally forever with Apache. 32-bit builds of Apache (1.3 or 2.0) don't currently handle "large" files. Apache child processes will die trying to write logs which have reached 2GB in size. And the obvious place for Apache to report the problem is -- you guessed it -- the log file that we can't write to.
Curious TySoft how does a log file slow a site down? Never heard of this before.Found the culprit - was right under my nose (log file >2gb) - will be now auto rotating logs & shouldnt have any further trouble!
Guess it works lol as P2L is loading better.
This is also the reason 32 bit builds of Apache can't serve any files >2gb for downloadng.
==============
Faken 330GB's is extreme having smaller sig banners and changing the tut thumbnails from gif to jpg would cut that down in half.
#48
Posted 01 March 2005 - 04:51 PM
i'll probably work on something to limit the filesize of sigs on these forums soon, as some are absolutely ridiculous
#49
Posted 01 March 2005 - 05:18 PM
What exactly does the quality setting in Photoshop for jpg do anyway? I'm guessing nothing?gifs are alot smaller filesize than jpgs, especially when in small thumbs, and there are ALOT of noobs that simple save in photoshop and select "maximum quality", cause they think it makes a difference
i'll probably work on something to limit the filesize of sigs on these forums soon, as some are absolutely ridiculous
#50
Posted 01 March 2005 - 05:28 PM
#51
Posted 01 March 2005 - 06:43 PM
You can reduce the quality to around 80% usually without much or any real visual loss.
Jay: I was only kidding about the post above, lol
#52
Posted 01 March 2005 - 06:58 PM
heh, phew,Mar 1 2005, 11:43 PM] I always save for web, unless im saving PSD.
You can reduce the quality to around 80% usually without much or any real visual loss.
Jay: I was only kidding about the post above, lol
#53 _*TySoft_*
Posted 02 March 2005 - 06:03 PM
#54
Posted 03 March 2005 - 03:44 PM
Maybe one day we'll face that problem It might take a few billion daily visits, but who knowsIf the site was nearing 2TB/mo, we would have cause to worry.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users