hundreds of images download a little slow

Discussion in 'HTML' started by windandwaves, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Hi Folk

    I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they total about 40Kb).

    However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be doing one at the time).

    Is there anyway I can speed up this process?

    Thank you

    - Nicolaas
    windandwaves, Feb 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. windandwaves wrote:

    > Hi Folk
    >
    > I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    > total about 40Kb).
    >
    > However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    > doing one at the time).
    >
    > Is there anyway I can speed up this process?
    >
    > Thank you
    >
    > - Nicolaas


    Enable pipelining.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453

    --
    Roy Schestowitz
    http://schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Feb 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    "Roy Schestowitz" <> wrote in message news:cve1ir$1sk7$...
    > windandwaves wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Folk
    >>
    >> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    >> total about 40Kb).
    >>
    >> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >> doing one at the time).
    >>
    >> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?
    >>
    >> Thank you
    >>
    >> - Nicolaas

    >
    > Enable pipelining.
    >
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453
    >
    > --


    Thank you Roy, that is allright for the user, by I am the administrator, the person making the site and I can not tell the world to
    download FireFox and start pipelining just for my one little silly page.

    Is there something you can do on the server, with php or perhaps JavaScript?
    windandwaves, Feb 22, 2005
    #3
  4. windandwaves wrote:

    >
    > "Roy Schestowitz" <> wrote in message
    > news:cve1ir$1sk7$...
    >> windandwaves wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi Folk
    >>>
    >>> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    >>> total about 40Kb).
    >>>
    >>> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >>> doing one at the time).
    >>>
    >>> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you
    >>>
    >>> - Nicolaas

    >>
    >> Enable pipelining.
    >>
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > Thank you Roy, that is allright for the user, by I am the administrator,
    > the person making the site and I can not tell the world to download
    > FireFox and start pipelining just for my one little silly page.
    >
    > Is there something you can do on the server, with php or perhaps
    > JavaScript?


    I realised that you were the administrator, but I thought it was a private
    page of yours, e.g. a portal.

    What's the URL? Are you sure you can't combine the (/some of the) images to
    make larger 'chunks'? If your page contains 300+ elements (essentially hits
    too), no wonder it takes a long time to long. Can you imagine the mess this
    inflicts upon cache? And the size of the log on the Web server?

    Roy

    --
    Roy Schestowitz
    http://schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Feb 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Roy Schestowitz wrote :
    > windandwaves wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Folk
    >>
    >> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    >> total about 40Kb).
    >>
    >> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >> doing one at the time).
    >>
    >> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?
    >>
    >> Thank you
    >>
    >> - Nicolaas

    >
    > Enable pipelining.
    >
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453


    wow. i didnt know about the about:config. thats very groovy.

    --
    talk to the teacher now and then about something other than the subject
    Disco Octopus, Feb 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Disco Octopus wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote :
    >> windandwaves wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi Folk
    >>>
    >>> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    >>> total about 40Kb).
    >>>
    >>> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >>> doing one at the time).
    >>>
    >>> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you
    >>>
    >>> - Nicolaas

    >>
    >> Enable pipelining.
    >>
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453

    >
    > wow. i didnt know about the about:config. thats very groovy.


    ....will only boost things under certain circumstances. Sites hate it, we
    love it...

    *smile*

    --
    Roy Schestowitz
    http://schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Feb 22, 2005
    #6
  7. windandwaves

    Richard Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:23:06 +0000 Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > windandwaves wrote:


    >> Hi Folk


    >> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    >> (they
    >> total about 40Kb).


    >> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >> doing one at the time).


    >> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?


    >> Thank you


    >> - Nicolaas


    > Enable pipelining.


    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453



    That's fine for the visitor who may or may not be using firefox.
    He's talking about sending the 300+ images to ANY browser FROM the server.

    If you'd bother to check out the firefox site, you'd also find a more
    detailed thing there about the "about:configure" file.
    Richard, Feb 22, 2005
    #7
  8. windandwaves

    Richard Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:52:26 +1300 windandwaves wrote:

    > Hi Folk


    > I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    > total about 40Kb).


    > However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    > doing one at the time).


    > Is there anyway I can speed up this process?


    > Thank you


    > - Nicolaas



    Might take me all of 2 seconds to load that many at that size.
    Why on earth do you have a need for so many damn small images?
    The only thing I can think of would be for tracker crap.

    Try a preloading routine.
    Richard, Feb 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Richard wrote:

    > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:23:06 +0000 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> windandwaves wrote:

    >
    >>> Hi Folk

    >
    >>> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    >>> (they
    >>> total about 40Kb).

    >
    >>> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >>> doing one at the time).

    >
    >>> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?

    >
    >>> Thank you

    >
    >>> - Nicolaas

    >
    >> Enable pipelining.

    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20453

    >
    >
    > That's fine for the visitor who may or may not be using firefox.
    > He's talking about sending the 300+ images to ANY browser FROM the server.


    As already said, I assumed he was administrator creating a hidden page for
    personal use.

    > If you'd bother to check out the firefox site, you'd also find a more
    > detailed thing there about the "about:configure" file.


    I did not know that. Thanks, I'll check it out...

    Roy

    --
    Roy Schestowitz
    http://schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Feb 22, 2005
    #9
  10. Richard wrote:

    > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:52:26 +1300 windandwaves wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Folk

    >
    >> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they
    >> total about 40Kb).

    >
    >> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to be
    >> doing one at the time).

    >
    >> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?

    >
    >> Thank you

    >
    >> - Nicolaas

    >
    >
    > Might take me all of 2 seconds to load that many at that size.
    > Why on earth do you have a need for so many damn small images?
    > The only thing I can think of would be for tracker crap.
    >
    > Try a preloading routine.


    I thought about that, but this would only make things graceful, not quicker.

    <sacrcasm>
    How about this: tar or zip all the files, attach a batch script to the
    archive and ask the user to run the script. Might be quicker...
    </sacrcasm>

    --
    Roy Schestowitz
    http://schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Feb 22, 2005
    #10
  11. windandwaves

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:52:26 +1300, "windandwaves"
    <> wrote:

    >I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small (they total about 40Kb).


    What's the URL ? How slow is "slow" ?

    I'm guessing this is an image gallery with lots of thumbnails. I
    wouldn't worry about it. But make sure that caching is allowed for
    them (check the HTTP headers that are returned), so that repeated
    navigation past this page doesn't have to keep re-loading them.
    Andy Dingley, Feb 22, 2005
    #11
  12. While the city slept, windandwaves () feverishly
    typed...

    > Hi Folk
    >
    > I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    > (they total about 40Kb).


    That's not what I would call "very small" for a page with lots of images on
    it. For my photos, I try to get my thumbnails to about a tenth of that size
    maximum, and the larger image (displayed when the user selects a thumbnail
    to view) is usually about half that. You have 300 of them on one page.

    > However, they do seem to take a while to download


    Grab a calculator... you are serving 300x40 kilobytes, or about 12 Meg! No
    wonder it is taking a while to download! Especially as you are serving this
    12 Meg in 300 40k chunks, so there are all those trips to the server too.

    > Is there anyway I can speed up this process?


    Is there any reason to have all those images on one page? It seems rather
    excessive. I would say that 300 images on one page (even as thumbnails)
    would be too many. Can you not break it down into groups of pictures, so you
    only have a few on each page? And maybe set them up as thumbnails so they
    will load quicker, and the user can see a larger version if they want to.

    Hope that helps.

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Feb 22, 2005
    #12
  13. windandwaves

    Oli Filth Guest

    nice.guy.nige wrote:
    > While the city slept, windandwaves () feverishly
    > typed...
    >>I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    >>(they total about 40Kb).

    ^
    ^
    !!!

    >>However, they do seem to take a while to download

    >
    > Grab a calculator... you are serving 300x40 kilobytes, or about 12 Meg! No
    > wonder it is taking a while to download! Especially as you are serving this
    > 12 Meg in 300 40k chunks, so there are all those trips to the server too.


    What?! He said the *total* size of the thumbnail files was 40kB.



    --
    Oli
    Oli Filth, Feb 22, 2005
    #13
  14. While the city slept, Oli Filth () feverishly
    typed...

    > nice.guy.nige wrote:
    >> While the city slept, windandwaves ()
    >> feverishly typed...
    >>> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    >>> (they total about 40Kb).

    > ^
    > ^
    > !!!
    >
    >>> However, they do seem to take a while to download

    >>
    >> Grab a calculator... you are serving 300x40 kilobytes, or about 12
    >> Meg! No wonder it is taking a while to download! Especially as you
    >> are serving this 12 Meg in 300 40k chunks, so there are all those
    >> trips to the server too.

    >
    > What?! He said the *total* size of the thumbnail files was 40kB.


    Okay, okay... I've not had any coffee yet....... ;-)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Feb 22, 2005
    #14
  15. windandwaves

    Sid Ismail Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:05:39 GMT, Oli Filth
    <> wrote:

    : nice.guy.nige wrote:
    : > While the city slept, windandwaves () feverishly
    : > typed...
    : >>I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    : >>(they total about 40Kb).
    : ^
    : ^
    : !!!
    :
    : >>However, they do seem to take a while to download
    : >
    : > Grab a calculator... you are serving 300x40 kilobytes, or about 12 Meg! No
    : > wonder it is taking a while to download! Especially as you are serving this
    : > 12 Meg in 300 40k chunks, so there are all those trips to the server too.
    :
    : What?! He said the *total* size of the thumbnail files was 40kB.


    300 images = 40Kb? That I'd like to see.

    He probably has it all in a huge table and that slows it down
    drastically. URL?

    Sid
    Sid Ismail, Feb 22, 2005
    #15
  16. windandwaves

    Richard Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:24:14 +0000 Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Richard wrote:


    >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:52:26 +1300 windandwaves wrote:


    >>> Hi Folk


    >>> I have a page with about 300 images. All of them are very small
    >>> (they
    >>> total about 40Kb).


    >>> However, they do seem to take a while to download (Firebox seems to
    >>> be
    >>> doing one at the time).


    >>> Is there anyway I can speed up this process?


    >>> Thank you


    >>> - Nicolaas



    >> Might take me all of 2 seconds to load that many at that size.
    >> Why on earth do you have a need for so many damn small images?
    >> The only thing I can think of would be for tracker crap.


    >> Try a preloading routine.


    > I thought about that, but this would only make things graceful, not
    > quicker.


    > <sacrcasm>
    > How about this: tar or zip all the files, attach a batch script to the
    > archive and ask the user to run the script. Might be quicker...
    > </sacrcasm>


    uh-uh. That would only turn away the visitor.
    Besides the host might not like the idea.
    What you need is a script that would load the page first, then load the
    images.
    You do that with <body onload="dothis">.
    Richard, Feb 22, 2005
    #16
  17. windandwaves

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Sid Ismail wrote:
    >
    > 300 images = 40Kb? That I'd like to see.
    >
    > He probably has it all in a huge table and that slows it down
    > drastically. URL?
    >
    > Sid


    It's about 133 bytes each. When I make boxes with rounded corners etc. the
    corner pieces are often around that size if I save them as .png. But 300?
    The only possible explanation that I can think of is a tile based game or
    something similar, because I cannot see any other situation where you would
    need this many small images.
    Nik Coughin, Feb 22, 2005
    #17
  18. windandwaves

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Richard wrote:
    >
    >> <sacrcasm>

    ^^^^

    >> How about this: tar or zip all the files, attach a batch script to
    >> the archive and ask the user to run the script. Might be quicker...
    >> </sacrcasm>

    ^^^^

    > uh-uh. That would only turn away the visitor.
    > Besides the host might not like the idea.
    > What you need is a script that would load the page first, then load
    > the images.
    > You do that with <body onload="dothis">.
    Nik Coughin, Feb 22, 2005
    #18
  19. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    "windandwaves" <> wrote

    [..........................]

    This message is a follow-up on the earlier posts that I send in the last few days, while I was trying to puzzle together a map. I
    have cross-posted this to comp.lang.JavaScript, as I also asked some questions there relating to this map and most of the map is
    done in JavaScript (any comments greatly appreciated).

    The culprit was Photoshop / image ready. I wanted to make a funky map with "on mouse overs" for about 40 regions. So Photoshop
    decided to slice it up..... BIG mistake. Yes, most of the images where only about 100bytes or so (gifs with few colours are indeed
    very small).

    No, I did not have them in a table that slowed things down. But YES, it was a stupid idea. On my high speed internet connection
    (4mb/s) it took about one minute to download, just as long as it took for my friend on a 56k. modem! Interesting. Once, I set my
    firefox to multiple pipe (or whatever that is called), it went a lot faster though (thanks for the tip).

    Anyway. I have devised a different way now for those 300 images... To see the results, please visit:

    http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/m/map.html

    I am pleased with the result, as it is a very interactive map that does not require MacroMedia's Flash, that should be quick to
    download (images are only about 25Kb) and that allows for people without JavaScript to just tick the boxes. Also, it is easy to
    maintain, as each region has its own small gif and no fancy position is required.

    To make those small gifs, I used Photoshop, where I created a map with extra layers for each "onmouseover" image. I then saved each
    layer individually as gif with only three colours (dark yellow, light yellow and transparency). I also cropped the image so that it
    only went from the NE corner to as far as it needs to go. Then, I got the co-ordinates for the image map from image ready. The
    images are named 0 to 40.gif.

    If anyone wanted to see the original (with the (almost!) 300 images, then have a look at:

    http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/m/disaster.html

    Thank you all for your comments.

    -Nicolaas
    windandwaves, Feb 23, 2005
    #19
  20. windandwaves

    RobB Guest

    Just a quick note: you should be using 'onclick' rather than
    'onmousedown'. To see why, click on a checkbox, and then 'pull off'
    while holding down the button. Difference between the raw ''mousedown'"
    and the semantic "click".

    Also, you might want to loop all those onclick handlers on page load,
    otherwise the page may load with boxes checked and no areas
    highlighted.

    var el, n = 1;
    while (el = document.getElementById('r' + n++))
    if (null != el.onclick)
    el.onclick();

    //assuming ids start at 'r1'

    Some flickering in IE; might want to control event bubbling.
    RobB, Feb 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. google account
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    279
    Larry Bates
    Jun 2, 2004
  2. =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Przemys=B3aw_R=F3=BFycki?=

    What's the cost of using hundreds of threads?

    =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Przemys=B3aw_R=F3=BFycki?=, Mar 1, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    496
  3. hundreds of seconds?

    , Oct 11, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    362
    neoedmund
    Oct 12, 2006
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    269
    Blair P. Houghton
    Oct 12, 2006
  5. He Shiming

    Hundreds of cases in a switch, optimization?

    He Shiming, Jun 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,663
    Christian Bau
    Jun 24, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page