Welcome Guest! You need to login or register to make posts.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
photo_tom  
#1 Posted : Monday, April 05, 2004 5:24:00 AM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

First, great job on V2, looks like a really excellent re-write. My one concern has to do with new thumbnails. I have the users upload the number of pixels required for the task we are doing. From V1 to V2, the syntax to do this has changed. I've implemented changes from V1 to V2 and it works well. Also, the individual file upload works fine. But my concern is that it seems that creation of the resized image (2048x3072 pixels to 1200 x 1800 pixels) seems to take about 2-3 times longer than V1. Is this normal? Or is there a setting I'm overlooking
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#2 Posted : Monday, April 05, 2004 11:10:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
>>First, great job on V2, looks like a really excellent re-write. Thanks :D My one concern has to do with new thumbnails. I have the users upload the number of pixels required for the task we are doing. From V1 to V2, the syntax to do this has changed. I've implemented changes from V1 to V2 and it works well. Also, the individual file upload works fine. But my concern is that it seems that creation of the resized image (2048x3072 pixels to 1200 x 1800 pixels) seems to take about 2-3 times longer than V1. Is this normal? Or is there a setting I'm overlooking Can you post here the params of control you use in order we could test it. To tell the truth we did not any changes in resize module, except that replaced bilinear interpolation with anysotropic one. Both of these resize methods have the same perfomance.
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
photo_tom  
#3 Posted : Monday, April 05, 2004 11:38:00 PM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

I didn't think that you had made any changes to that section. That is why I was a little confused about result. In terms of timing on a athalon 2400 machine resizeing a 2048x3072 to 1200x1800 seems to take about 3-4 seconds. On a 1500 Centrino, a 1500x2000 image takes about 4 seconds. I cannot resize the thumbnail to rectangle size because I do not kwno the orientation of the image before it is uploaded.
Code:
<OBJECT type="application/x-oleobject"  id="ImageUploader" codeBase="ImageUploader2.cab#version=1,8,2,12" height="500" width=750px classid="clsid:FD18DD5E-B398-452A-B22A-B54636BA9F0D"name="ImageUploader" VIEWASTEXT>
<PARAM NAME="LicenseKey" VALUE="6149-1367-5163-5013">
<PARAM NAME="Action" VALUE="/desktopmodules/photoUpload/PhotoUploadReceiveImage.aspx?photoOrderID=61&paperpriceID=1&qty=1&ratio=0.67&maxDim=6">
<PARAM NAME="RedirectUrl" VALUE="http://www.starphotojvl.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=37&PageID=2">
<PARAM NAME="ShowUploadCompleteMessage" VALUE="False">
<PARAM NAME="UploadThumbnail1Width" VALUE="1800">
<PARAM NAME="UploadThumbnail1Height" VALUE="1800">
<PARAM NAME="UploadThumbnail1JpegQuality" VALUE="90">
<PARAM NAME="UploadSourceFile" VALUE="False">
<PARAM NAME="UploadMode" VALUE="Separate">
<PARAM NAME="SignatureFilter" VALUE="Images">
<PARAM NAME="FileMask" VALUE="*.jpg;*.jpeg">
<PARAM NAME="AdditionalFormName" VALUE="">
<PARAM NAME="MaxTotalFileSize" VALUE="0">
<PARAM NAME="MaxFileSize" VALUE="0">
<PARAM NAME="MaxFileCount" VALUE="0">
<PARAM NAME="TimeOut" VALUE="45000">
<PARAM NAME="PreviewThumbnailSize" VALUE="150">
<PARAM NAME="FileTreeWidth" VALUE="200">
<PARAM NAME="PreviewListHeight" VALUE="300">
<PARAM NAME="SilentMode" VALUE="False">
<PARAM NAME="ShowDebugWindow" VALUE="True">
<PARAM NAME="EnableRotate" VALUE="True">
<PARAM NAME="CheckBoxesVisible" VALUE="True">
<PARAM NAME="RememberLastVisited" VALUE="True">
<PARAM NAME="Layout" VALUE="TwoPanes">
<PARAM NAME="ShowDescriptions" VALUE="False">
</OBJECT>

Edited by user Monday, December 24, 2007 6:03:54 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
photo_tom  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:44:00 AM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

More Accurate Statics on use on athalon 2400 computer upload 41 5 megapixel (1944 x 2592) camera jpegs. Average image about 2.5mb Upload at 1350x1800 pixels approximately 11 seconds of processing time / image upload at 900 x 1200 pixels, approximately 3.28 seconds of processing time / image Also, after doing these two set of uploads, IE was using about 385mb of ram and a peak at 414mb. This number is somewhat alarming. Secondary note; I'm using this system on a cable modem connection and as such, it starts to get busy in the evening. The new version seems to be much more sensitive to network congestion that V1. Where I was able to upload consistantly at about 20-30kbytes/ sec, in evenings I'm doing to good get 6-7kbytes /sec. When I run system in early moring (5:30AM), I get the pervious versions speed. Any thoughts for me on how to speed things up?
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:19:00 AM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Also, after doing these two set of uploads, IE was using about 385mb of ram and a peak at 414mb. This number is somewhat alarming. Did you get it with version 2.0 or with version 1.x? Version 1.x has such problem, but in version 2.0 we have added support of caching request on hard drive., so it doesn't cause memory burden. When I tested version 2.0 on ~40 5 mp images i got about 45 mb memory peak.
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
photo_tom  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:15:00 PM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

I'm using V2. In trying to confirm your experience, I tried running on my localhost system without visual studio running and found that I got the old performance of V1 back. It turns out that my slowness is a result of Win-XP having to do paging. While watching memory usage while it is running using task manager, I can see Uploader requesting memory as it is doing it's processing. After processing each image, I see the memory usage fall back. But, I'm also seeing the memory usage and peak memory usage go up ~7mb per image. It almost looks like a memory leak.
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:20:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Tom, do you use ASP.NET for upload? If yes then I should notice that ASP.NET cache all incoming request in memory. Please check what process has taken a memory IEXPLORER.EXE or aspnet_wp.exe?
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
photo_tom  
#8 Posted : Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:52:00 AM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

Yes, we are using ASP.NET Memory usage is coming from IEXPLORER.EXE. aspnet_wp.exe memory use climbs some, but quickly stabilized.
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#9 Posted : Friday, April 09, 2004 1:36:00 AM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Tom, please say me the version of Image Uploader. You can check it following way in IE: Tools -> Internet Options... -> Settings -> View Objects... It seems you have beta version of Image Uploader 2.0 which don't support caching request on drive. Also, does memory go down after upload complete?
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
photo_tom  
#10 Posted : Friday, April 09, 2004 2:22:00 AM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

Ver 2.0.3.159 No memory does not go down.
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#11 Posted : Friday, April 09, 2004 2:37:00 AM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Thanks Tom, we will check it. BTW use object tag with correct version info:
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
photo_tom  
#12 Posted : Friday, April 09, 2004 2:59:00 AM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

One problem I've had is determining what version I've just downloaded. the only way I know of is to open the download zip and look in the "inf" file. Perhaps on your download page, you could specify the version that is available for download
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#13 Posted : Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:08:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Perhaps on your download page, you could specify the version that is available for download Yes, good idea. As for problem of thumbnails speed creation, we have fixed it. The update will be available during this week.
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
Fedor  
#14 Posted : Friday, April 16, 2004 10:14:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Tom, do you upload one large file or many small files?
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
photo_tom  
#15 Posted : Sunday, April 18, 2004 3:11:00 AM(UTC)
photo_tom

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/27/2003(UTC)
Posts: 29

Multiple images from a 5 and a 6 megapixel cameras. Compressed them so that the long dimension is only 1200 pixels. Odd point, when looking at postings in the forum, your dates show up as nov 2003 and mine as jul 2003. But when replying, your date shows up as 17 apr 2004 at 6.14am.
Tom Thorp Still waters, great photos
Fedor  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:26:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,545

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 58 time(s) in 57 post(s)
Tom, we have released Image Uploader 2.1 where this problem is fixed.

View post for more info.
Best regards, Fedor Skvortsov
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.