(Solved) Attachment fail

  • 65 Replies
  • 1797 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline claude

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
    • mathr.co.uk
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2018, 05:03:08 PM »
As I understand it, posting large (dimensions) images puts a strain on the server, as they must be decompressed, downscaled, and compressed again for the thumbnail.  Uncompressed 8k is almost 100MB. Perhaps upload a reasonable-size image and link to off-site hosting (not as an embedded image) for the huge version?  Don't know why gallery would be different from image attachment in this respect...

Offline gerrit

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1831
« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2018, 05:26:58 PM »
As I understand it, posting large (dimensions) images puts a strain on the server, as they must be decompressed, downscaled, and compressed again for the thumbnail.  Uncompressed 8k is almost 100MB. Perhaps upload a reasonable-size image and link to off-site hosting (not as an embedded image) for the huge version?  Don't know why gallery would be different from image attachment in this respect...
4k < 8k

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
    • Digilantism
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2018, 02:32:05 AM »
Still broken. You do not consider this to be a problem?

Well... sort of, I'll try something a bit bigger...
Fragmentarium is not a toy, it is a very versatile tool that can be used to make toys ;)

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fractals/fragmentarium

Offline gerrit

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1831
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2018, 03:14:24 AM »
I compressed the 3840X2160 from 4.4MB to 2.2MB and that worked.

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
    • Digilantism
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2018, 04:01:54 AM »
... a bit bigger

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
    • Digilantism
« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2018, 04:10:46 AM »
I still maintain the idea that attachments are for "informative" visual assistance via reasonable sized images (no larger than a given program presents on your screen) and the gallery is the place for large images that are rendered to file.

I have just attached 2 of what I consider excessively large images for attachments, one larger than 3840 near 4M, and there doesn't seem to be any issues so... no, I don't think there is a problem with the site per say.

Offline gerrit

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1831
« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2018, 04:32:12 AM »
Did some tests. It seems to fail at that size somewhere between 4.1 and 5 MB.

Offline gerrit

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1831
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2018, 05:18:45 AM »
Today it's worse. 4k picture attachment uploads fine but gives error as described before for any size bigger than 2MB (was 4M). That's too small to look ok.

I'll try to jump through the hoops with the gallery stuff and linking, but it would be nice if things worked as advertised.

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
    • Digilantism
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2018, 05:52:15 AM »
4791833 bytes

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
    • Digilantism
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2018, 07:11:37 AM »
and another one?

these are excessively large and will be frowned upon if this limit is exploited, as I said earlier, the intent of allowing image attachments is for illustrative purposes and the gallery is where people should be posting their large works.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 02:28:43 AM by 3DickUlus »

Offline 3DickUlus

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1380
    • Digilantism
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2018, 07:26:23 AM »
if attached image size becomes a problem, like, threads that take a ridiculous amount of time to load because each page contains 40M of images, then the limits will be restricted to a more reasonable size.

it's ok once in a while when needed but please use the gallery and the BBCode links or auto generated post as provided.

A reasonable size for image attachments is 1M or less.

Offline gerrit

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1831
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2018, 07:29:29 AM »
and another one?

these are excessively large and will be frowned upon if this limit is exploited, as I said earlier, the intent of allowing image attachments is for illustrative purposes and the gallery is where people should be posting their large works.

WTF?

You proclaimed that before, contradicting a recent thread where Frakatalist said exactly the opposite. esp. stressing the ABILITY TO POST 4K IMAGES WHICH IS WHY THE 5M LIMIT EXISTS and a preference to POST IMAGTES USING ATTACHMENTS. Or did I miss a mind reading session somewhere?

Why don't you guys get your act together  instead of randomly frowning your private opinions to avoid addressing any issues. Or is this the new site policy, or what??

I'm getting quite annoyed here. If you want me to FOAD let me know and I'll do so.

Offline pauldelbrot

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2018, 08:28:52 AM »
Large attachment sizes cannot make a thread slow to load, because the generated inline thumbnails still top out at a few K. I don't see any technical or pragmatic reason to limit attachment sizes more than gallery upload sizes. As far as server resources are concerned, a five meg file is a five meg file is a five meg file, wherever it appears on the site; as far as user resources and bandwidth are concerned, a 5K thumbnail is a 5K thumbnail is a 5K thumbnail, wherever it appears on the site. Using img tags to embed much-larger-than-that images directly into a forum post will have far more of an impact on the time and bandwidth to view a thread than using attachments will, as a consequence, whereas attachments and gallery uploads will both use the same amount on average when someone clicks through to view a full-size image somewhere, and negligible amounts when someone just views a gallery index page or a thread with attachments.

Offline Fraktalist

  • *
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Strange Attractor
  • Posts: 1143
« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2018, 11:46:52 AM »
If I had anticipated all this trouble I'd have never introduced that idea of image threads.

You proclaimed that before, contradicting a recent thread where Frakatalist said exactly the opposite. esp. stressing the ABILITY TO POST 4K IMAGES WHICH IS WHY THE 5M LIMIT EXISTS and a preference to POST IMAGTES USING ATTACHMENTS. Or did I miss a mind reading session somewhere?

indeed, 3dickulus that is what I said and what I meant.
there is no problem with 4k attachements reaching 4-5mb, that's perfectly fine gerrit.
They don't slow things down or increase thread size.
(Embedding them would be a problem.)

But: it sucks that these large attachments obviously do create a problem for some users.
And it sucks even more that we can't reproduce the issue. In my tests I too never had any problem uploading large images.

Problems we can't reproduce are hard to solve.
We've looked into the issue, but could not find anything wrong.
So tbh, I don't see what we can do about it right now.


There are differences among the staff what is the preferred way of presenting images.
Our Options: Image threads, gallery with auto-threads, gallery without autothreads..
And it seems to me like that there will be more differences in the future.
We currently lack the options, there are no proper out of the box solutions and coding advanced stuff is beyond the time we want to invest as volunteers here.


If we don't find a solution for this issue and it keeps popping up, we will have to consider lowering the limit and maybe even discard the idea of image threads and only use the gallery to present images.
yep, that would suck. but better pull the plug in the early stages if an idea doesn't work out.

we had 3 months of open beta testing, but the usecases that are causing problems now weren't tested exessivly due to a lack of participation from the userbase.



But I agree, we should try to keep the internal debate inside to not confuse anyone.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 02:06:06 PM by Fraktalist »

Offline pauldelbrot

  • *
  • 3f
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2018, 04:55:23 PM »
So far as I am aware, the only problems currently happening with large attachments affect the uploader, rather than everyone encountering the thread. So my suggestion would be, to keep the status quo. If a particular uploader has too many problems with attachment uploads that should work (under 5M) they can always use the gallery, which seems to have fewer problems (though, not none -- I had another spurious 400 Bad Request the other day with a gallery upload).

My own suspicion is that either there is an intermittent fault in the communication between two machines that are involved in implementing the site, or else there is something that times out on people while an upload is in progress, which can hit an image close to but under the 5M limit if the user's own internet connection is slow enough. The latter would be a very easy fix, just raise the timeout e.g. from 60 to 120 seconds. The former might be harder, depending on the underlying cause. The really tricky bit is diagnosing something that is intermittent. Of course, if it's a timeout that is affected by the user's connection speed, the admins will never see it personally because they're not crawling in over a slow consumer ADSL line like everyone else, unless they go home and remote in from there to test for things affected by connection speed. (Note: HTTP POST should not time out as long as data is at least trickling in, so for this to be the problem there'd have to be a second connection that was failing, e.g. the POST is received by machine A, which opens a connection to machine B as soon as the upload starts but doesn't do anything else until it has the entire file, then shoves it into the open connection to machine B, which meanwhile may have timed out if it was idle too long...there might be good reasons for doing this, e.g. so if machine B is unreachable it can error out immediately instead of after wasting time and bandwidth on an upload that can't succeed, but maybe a quick connect to test if B is reachable, close, then reopen when the file's arrived would work best. B going down in mid-upload would be a rare case, and one where the bandwidth wastage is unavoidable no matter what was done.)


xx
"Time Span"

Started by cricke49 on Fractal Image Gallery

0 Replies
341 Views
Last post August 02, 2018, 07:05:21 AM
by cricke49
question
[Solved] Color interpolation

Started by galac on Programming

5 Replies
304 Views
Last post March 02, 2019, 09:03:11 AM
by mclarekin
xx
Birdie Style

Started by gannjondal on Fractal Image Gallery

1 Replies
410 Views
Last post May 08, 2018, 02:39:37 PM
by who8mypnuts
clip
Neural Style Transfer with Fractal Art

Started by reallybigname on Other Artforms

1 Replies
181 Views
Last post July 20, 2019, 04:25:41 PM
by reallybigname
xx
Buddhabrot-style Burning Ship [65536x24576]

Started by programagor on Fractal Image Gallery

12 Replies
677 Views
Last post October 10, 2018, 02:12:39 AM
by 3DickUlus