Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Does "force resize" chew up bandwidth?

    My company and I have been using an e-commerce platform called Really East Cart for the past year or so, and a couple of months ago we were told we had exceeded our bandwidth (50GB) and we would need to buy more.

    We did not understand how we could exceed it, when we only have around 600 products, and have an average of 60,000 page views per month. Anyway, we upgraded our bandwidth, to only be told we have now exceeded our 75GB limit and would now need 100GB per month.

    This seemed excessive, but I think I might have identified the issue.
    Please do correct me if anything I write below is incorrect

    On the majority of ecommerce sites I have come across, when a visitor looks at "All products" (for example), they will see a grid of the products in the store, with thumbnail images of each. As far as I understand, the thumbnails are GENUINE thumbnails (150px x 150px) and were generated by the system when they were uploaded.

    However, our system does not automatically generate any thumbnails when product images are uploaded, and instead "thumbnails" are simply the full-sized 600x600 images FORCE-RESIZED using PHP. No genuine thumbnails are created at all. If I right-click one of these faux-thumbnail images and visit the URL of the image, the image is 600x600, NOT 150x150.

    Am I right in saying that this is a very uneconomical way of displaying images?
    Rather than loading thirty 150x150 images (5kb each on average), the browser loads thirty 600x600 and simply force-resizes the images.

    IF I'm correct, then this is potentially the culprit that is causing us to overrun our bandwidth.
    Some rough maths shows how uneconomical it is:
    If a browser loads 30 product images (in the grid), all of which are around 50kb, then the total size of these images is 1.5mb (not taking into account the total size of the entire page).
    It would only take 731 page loads to reach 1GB.
    30 x 50kb = 1.5mb
    1.5mb x 731 = 1GB

    However, if genuine thumbnails are created and loaded (each around 5kb), then a page of 30 product images only makes 150kb.
    To reach 1GB, the images would have to be loaded 7,000 times. This is approximately 10 TIMES more economical, and would use far less bandwidth.

    Am I right in thinking this is the case?

    Any help is greatly appreciated,
    Dan

  • #2
    Regular Coder patryk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    /dev/couch
    Posts
    398
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 64 Times in 64 Posts
    yes you are right.
    not to mention that site with size of 1.5megs will load forever on slow internet connection.

    and about your hosting: do you really need this particular one? there are good hostings out there with unlimited bandwidth...

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Real Programmers can write assembly code in any language" - Larry Wall

  • #3
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by patryk View Post
    yes you are right.
    not to mention that site with size of 1.5megs will load forever on slow internet connection.

    and about your hosting: do you really need this particular one? there are good hostings out there with unlimited bandwidth...
    Thanks for your response Patryk, another great response from you!

    Ah that's good to hear, I knew we couldn't have been using that much bandwidth unless something in the way the site is coded was uneconomical.

    We initially told them we'd like to re-host the site somewhere else (our domain name is on Siteground, so that was a possibility, they also offer unlimited BW), but they've got us over a barrel; we're not allowed to host it elsewhere and it must be hosted with them because they want to protect their code, and feel that if we host it on our own server we could potentially rob the code. It's undertandable, but inconvenient


  •  

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •