Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!npeersf03.am4!fx11.am4.POSTED!not-for-mail From: PlastiqueMAN Newsgroups: comp.lang.php Message-ID: <201205232245351380-plastique@mancom> References: <4FA6A2C4.6030708@arnowelzel.de> <4FA80EF3.5000806@arnowelzel.de>

<370jq7t07vrqpqn8l94rbpgcb4vmifma0q@mfesser.de>

<0rWqr.8806$br3.2203@newsfe10.iad>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Windows binaries 64bit for PHP User-Agent: Unison/2.1.7 Lines: 74 X-Complaints-To: http://www.panic.com/unison/dmca.html NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 20:45:35 UTC Organization: http://www.panic.com/unison/ Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 22:45:35 +0200 X-Received-Bytes: 4091 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:6149 On 2012-05-11 23:38:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said: > Shake wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle avait écrit le 11/05/2012 : >>> On 5/11/2012 2:58 PM, Shake wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle a couché sur son écran : >>>>> >>>>> Loading the script, starting the scripting module, initializing the >>>>> environment, interpreting and running the script, checking for the >>>>> presence of the image, storing a resized script if necessary, loading >>>>> the image and sending it, and cleaning up the environment. >>>>> >>>>> This vs. sending the image directly via an tag. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, no extra overhead! And no way to send the image without a script! >>>>> >>>> >>>> The Extra overhead is something like in the code that generate the page: >>>> >>>> >>> if(!file_exists(IMG_PATH.$image_file)) scaleImage($image_file); >>>> ?> >>>> >>>> Not look like an "application killer" to me. >>>> >>>> Greetings. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> There's a lot more to the overhead than that! >> >> Which? >> >> Is the image going to be accessed directly by its URL, or is loaded >> inside a webpage? I am sure is this last case. >> >> So Loading a PHP script will occur 99.999% if you reescaled the image >> previously with a batch or not. All the work of load an script, will be >> done always. >> >> I don't believe that "react" to a 404 error is the good aproach, but >> generating dinamically the scaled images when the page that show them >> is required. >> >> And this only need the few lines to test if file exists and generate >> the images if not. >> >> The fact that the image is directly accessed without pasing first for >> the php script... > > is hardly any CPU. > > The same actions take place: the file must be opened headers > constricted and then data streamed. whether apache or PHP does this is > scarcely an issue. Sorry to say this, but PHP compared to the default handler in Apache is sloooooow. You can test this simply by writing a php script that copies some large files from a directory to another and then write an identical C program... If this site we're talking about needs to serve a lot of request, I have to agree with Jerry on this one. >> >> Someone talked about a catalog of image... I am sure they are accessed >> through a we, not directly. >> >> Even if they are accessed via search engines, these search engines have >> to visit the scripts that would generate the scaled images. >> >> Greetings.