| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mr. A
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Location: INTERNET |
0.  Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:53 am Post subject: About bandwidth |
 |
|
I had a rather... let's say eye-opening conversation with Sherlok on the IRC boards. To my surprise it seems that images posted on people's servers use the forum's bandwidth. Bandwidth that, according to some users and people who work on the forum, is in short supply. I'm sure many people with Cable/DSL/Lan see cool pictures, huge animated GIFs, etcetera and don't think twice about size.
This may seem radical, but has anyone considered disabling images (except for the 50x50 icon) completely on the forum? Or creating some kind of script to automatically disable any links to images that are, say, over 100K. Beleive it or not this idea woulda' freaked me out awhile ago, but I think this really needs addressing.
No malice, I'd simply like to be part of the solution rather then part of the problem.
-Alpha |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IguanaGrrl
Staff Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA |
| 1. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
*blink blink*
Ok, someone please explain to me how images hosted on people's personal accounts uses our bandwidth?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 2. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sherl0k is wrong.
A simple test for you. Consider the domain where I host my avatar, phazon.net.
Add phazon.net to /etc/hosts.
Now you can no longer load my avatar.
If DDRFreak were loading the avatar for you, then no amount of DNS trickery would prevent you from receiving the image.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 3. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
For crying out loud Cutriss. Would you please stop telling the windows users to look for /etc/hosts? /etc doesn't exist  .
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sherl0k
Maniac Member
Joined: 27 Jan 2002
Location: the internet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Cliffórdo
Trick Member
Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Location: Tokyoooooo! IRC: #ddrfuk on irc.faereal.net |
| 5. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sherl0k wrote: |
Cutriss, I thought you would've thought I was smarter than that. |
Somehow, I thought you would have thought he thought you were smart enough to have thought of that. I think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. A
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Location: INTERNET |
| 6. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cutriss wrote: | Sherl0k is wrong.
|
Actually I think I'm the one who erred here, little mis-communication between Sherlok, his friends and I in the discussion we had yesterday.
Makes sence, hell the bandwidth mighta' been in the tens of terabytes if it worked that way.
Perhalps it would be good time for a shift in topic (if no one is opposed): excessive posting. The comment was made to me a half-week ago about my posting (I have 8 posts/day average, most chatting in Random Chat), I thought someone was simply messing with me, being a pain, or screwing around. Then I recieve a barrage of complains, which I cannot say are unfounded. Whether they actually are or not may be another story*, but I have a tendancy to give people the benefit of the doubt in a situation that seems to seriously concern them. If it is a real problem, then hopefully we all can find a productive way to deal with it.
For me, in light of recent events and what Sherl0k and Co. told me on IRC, I will seriously make a better attempt to "self-police" my actions and posting in Random Chat, and maybe others he mentioned would follow in light of the situation.
Without hatred, without malice,
-Alpha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rampage
Administrator
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
Location: Redmond, WA |
| 7. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VxJasonxV wrote: | For crying out loud Cutriss. Would you please stop telling the windows users to look for /etc/hosts? /etc doesn't exist .
|
c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 8. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VxJasonxV wrote: | For crying out loud Cutriss. Would you please stop telling the windows users to look for /etc/hosts? /etc doesn't exist .
|
Yes it does! All you have to do is map a drive mount to C:\winnt\system32\drivers.
Now assume that's your root, and you can go to /etc/hosts.
Or you can just understand what I mean without nitpicking it.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bringer of Death
Trick Member
Joined: 08 Apr 2002
Location: Saving the world, one death at a time. |
| 9. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:25 am Post subject: Re: About bandwidth |
|
|
Back on the first topic...
| AlphaOp wrote: | | This may seem radical, but has anyone considered disabling images (except for the 50x50 icon) completely on the forum? |
Dude. You don't even know that avatars are actually 64x64 pixels. I am personally taking your suggestinon worth less than a grain of salt.
_________________
| iperson wrote: | | EBT wrote: | | Hey man, what's for dinner tonight? |
You have asked for infinity and you don't deserve it. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evn
Staff Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2002
Location: Calgary AB |
| 10. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The images should be sent at most once per session - probably less because your browser will be caching them.
EDIT: The only thing I can think of to make them "more cached" would be to use CSS to set backgrounds for images, and replace the <IMG> tags with <DIVS>. I find that as a rule browsers have a bad habit of not thinking twice about loading CSS sheets after the first time you get them.
Great for bandwidth: pain in the butt when you're try to design with them.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. A
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Location: INTERNET |
| 11. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:58 am Post subject: Re: About bandwidth |
|
|
| Death Bringer wrote: | Back on the first topic...
| AlphaOp wrote: | | This may seem radical, but has anyone considered disabling images (except for the 50x50 icon) completely on the forum? |
Dude. You don't even know that avatars are actually 64x64 pixels. I am personally taking your suggestinon worth less than a grain of salt. |
Ah come on, rough approximation... give me at least a quarter-grain.
I remembered now my idea of something to scan for images over X-size, but it seems it's been rendered pretty damn moot right about now. 
But I'm still curious if the idea of no images every crossed anyone's mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Dogg
Administrator
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Sunnyvale, CA |
| 12. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why would I want to disable images? They don't hurt my bandwidth, and as far as I know, it doesn't hurt your bandwidth either, unless you're in the Imaging forum.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. A
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Location: INTERNET |
| 13. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the only reasn I can think of off the top of my head is severe abuse (read: goatse), but I take it that this place is either:
A. Fortunate enough to have not had any real problems with that
B. Fast enough in response to contain problems like that
Or a combination of both.
So yeah, sorry for any inconvenience or confusion that this thread may have caused... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slik
Trick Member
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Location: augusta, ga |
| 14. Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Finally the situation has been fixed, can we close this thread now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
