|
|
Posted by ZeldorBlat on 06/18/07 19:05
On Jun 18, 2:35 pm, cbmeeks <cbme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When you say "it's very demanding and it simply can't serve the data
> > as quickly as a static image in a browsable location" what evidence do
> > you have? Have you run any tests using a profiler to see what the
> > problem might be?
>
> Well, you got me there. No. Not exhaustive tests. I can notice a
> difference. Maybe not much of one but it's there. Plus, doesn't PHP
> have to load the entire image (or at least some of it) before it
> streams it to the browser? In other words, wouldn't there be more
> memory requirements vs serving it out directly?
>
> > Do you really have that much traffic, or are you
> > "planning" for the future?
>
> Mostly planning. I usually load a server up pretty heavy...as in, it
> has to do a lot of work...CPU intensive so every little bit helps.
Read this article, specifically Tip #5:
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-clear-code/?ca=dgr-
FClnxw01linuxcodetips>
How exactly are you reading/sending the image out? The way you're
doing it can certainly have an effect on performance.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|