Server space on SF - Page 2

Miss Hepburn · #11 01-05-2021, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiedust

Those full size photos can take up a lot of space. I think that there are some threads which cater to that only.

You mean the ones like a full torso of Pam Anderson in a bikini or desserts?
Yeah, tho they were vitally important, had to get rid of those.

pixiedust · #12 01-05-2021, 08:45 PM

..............

BigJohn · #13 01-05-2021, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Native spirit

Some of the quotes on the posts were so long and it had to be cut short.
as only two links per post are allowed
it had to be bought in line with that.

Namaste

Even though emphasize has been put out that we can only quote 2 lines..... that hasn't been respected by everyone.

I give you an A plus for putting that out. Hopefully everybody will comply.

Thanks for your fine works.

Native spirit · #14 01-05-2021, 09:14 PM

No i know john some need more of a reminder than others.
but on the whole people are doing it

Namaste

Miss Hepburn · #15 01-05-2021, 11:18 PM

Big John, I'm going to sneak into those people's houses and glue their keyboards. Shhh, tho.

BigJohn · #16 01-05-2021, 11:27 PM

As you do that, I am going to hide the kettles so they don't lose their black color.

bobjob · #17 02-05-2021, 07:48 AM

Is there really an issue concerning use of the 'Quote' utility when responding to postings?

If quoting someone's posting makes the file size of the response unduly large - in turn causing a server problem as implied - then de-activating the 'Quote' button via the website's configuration software would resolve the issue at a stroke.

To improve the understanding of this ignoramus, what is the difference in file size of a posting where only two lines of text is quoted compared with the file size of a quoted posting containing more than two lines of text?

BigJohn · #18 02-05-2021, 01:00 PM

I would say the difference is a function of the time it takes to extract a short file vs the time to extract a short file.

bobjob · #19 02-05-2021, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I would say the difference is a function of the time it takes to extract a short file vs the time to extract a short file.

What would be extracting a short file - or a longer one as I think you likely meant - and from where, BJ? And how 'short' is short?

Given adequate bandwidth files are retrieved in minuscule fractions of a second, near-enough instantaneously.

Onward transmission and file opening is influenced by factors involving other equipments. That can result in noticeable delays and/or slow responses.

File sizes are usually expressed in kilobytes, megabytes etc. Simple text files are typically small unless they're hundreds of pages long. A posting of a few sentences will be in the order of a few kilobytes, minuscule in terms of server capacity. They're not long or short.

Images can be big files - a few megabytes isn't anything unusual. Lots of them might be a problem for a server whose capacity is stretched. Heavily formatted text files will be bigger than simple text ones but probably smaller than large image files.

BigJohn · #20 02-05-2021, 02:48 PM

I had one computer, in which it would take about an hour to open 1 file. Sure, the file was about 2 gigabytes.......

If a file is x bytes long, I would expect a file 20X bytes long would take a considerable amount of more time to load. By reducing the files size and the redundancies, we might see a substantial improvement.