Server space on SF

Originally Posted by bobjob

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.

Hello Bobjob,
Images are not stored of SF server, only the link to another server is stored, so the size of the image does affect
the memory used on SF server.
Like this image bellow only uses the space to store this text:
'https://i.imgur.com/DZ1aSAT.png'

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

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.

Home computing is one of the onward transmission and file opening factors I mentioned. Removing large file-size images and limiting any new ones to a more manageable file-size is the obvious way to go in terms of storage but other than when uploading or downloading, even large files have little impact on a well-resourced server system.

Of course if the server - or the website's storage allocation on it - are getting close to capacity then drop-outs and slow running and access times are likely outcomes. We saw those situations - for whatever reasons - some time ago when the website went down the pan for quite a time.

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Legrand

Hello Bobjob,
Images are not stored of SF server, only the link to another server is stored, so the size of the image does affect the memory used on SF server.
Like this image bellow only uses the space to store this text:
'https://i.imgur.com/DZ1aSAT.png'

*Photo is above*

There ya go then - images aren't going to have much impact on the primary website server but might cause slow down when large file-size images are being retrieved from remote servers and being processed.

Cutting out the ability to post images on this website would immediately negate such effects.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by bobjob

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?

Well, I hope y'all figure it out!

I know that over a decade - on any forum I get tired of scrolling an 8-10 inch long post again, let alone 3 more times,
that is right there above it.
Ha, then the responses are usually - "Good post!" or "I agree!"
NOW THAT is when all my spiritual progress is tested!! *gun to head with bang flag emoji*

Originally Posted by bobjob

There ya go then - images aren't going to have much impact on the primary website server but might cause slow down when large file-size images are being retrieved from remote servers and being processed.

Cutting out the ability to post images on this website would immediately negate such effects.

The image is not even downloaded from SF server like you say, the downloading of the image is done by the users computer navigator on another server when this navigator reads this text:

[IMG..htt..://i.imgur.com/DZ1aSAT.png../IMG]

So in no way does the size of the image slows down the SF server, it may slow down the navigator of my computer in showing the picture by a fraction of a second. But with the computer we have today and the band width the human brain cannot perceive the time it takes to download the image (at least the size of the image we can link here), not matter its size on the screen.

So I do not understand the use of stopping people from linking images here...

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Legrand

The image is not even downloaded from SF server like you say, the downloading of the image is done by the users computer navigator on another server when this navigator reads this text:

[IMG..htt..://i.imgur.com/DZ1aSAT.png../IMG]

So in no way does the size of the image slows down the SF server, it may slow down the navigator of my computer in showing the picture by a fraction of a second. But with the computer we have today and the band width the human brain cannot perceive the time it takes to download the image (at least the size of the image we can link here), not matter its size on the screen.

So I do not understand the use of stopping people from linking images here...

If what you've surmised is totally accurate then I agree with you - there's no need to stop images being uploaded if they don't negatively impact the operation of this website in whatever way is found unacceptable.

But I wasn't the one who raised the large images situation and I was simply looking for a work-around if it WERE a problem.

I haven't tried uploading an image save for my profile picture that has always failed to work, by the way, so I have no experience of how to do it on the forum boards themselves!

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Well, I hope y'all figure it out!

I know that over a decade - on any forum I get tired of scrolling an 8-10 inch long post again, let alone 3 more times,
that is right there above it.
Ha, then the responses are usually - "Good post!" or "I agree!"
NOW THAT is when all my spiritual progress is tested!! *gun to head with bang flag emoji*

There's no way that I personally can figure out if the 'Quote' utility causes website operation issues.

My work-around suggestion is that over-long quoted pieces followed by short responses should be edited by deleting most of the text from the quote - it takes but a moment - but even if you don't I doubt it has any major effect other than annoyance!

[bobjob]

We should be mindful that the 'Quote' button is very helpful in tying response to earlier posting - its raison d'etre.

I find it immensely frustrating if a member creates a new post without it being obvious what earlier posting they're responding to. That's particularly irksome if a number of other postings have been made in the interim and I have to go looking for an earlier one way back!

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

I know that over a decade - on any forum I get tired of scrolling an 8-10 inch long post again, let alone 3 more times, that is right there above it. Ha,...... is tested!!

edited to thin the original...

I guess I'm seeing something different on my laptop computer screen because very few postings stretch 8 to 10 inches on my screen. If they did I'd probably ignore them for being verbose!

Anyone with any nouse should know not to post ridiculously long pieces.

[BigJohn]

The person can write
EXCERPT:

or better yet
EXCERPT post #43