Another alternative to NetPBM?
|
Kathie
Joined: 2002-09-14
Posts: 4 |
Posted: Sat, 2002-09-14 01:31
|
|
My web host today decided that they didn't like users having NetPBM on their accounts today, due to its high system resource usage (they even suspended my account for it, labeling it a violation of their ToS! -- and they're going after everyone else this weekend for it.). Is there some other way to work this, without NetPBM being on the web server itself? i.e. having it installed on my home computer... and running the images through it there, then just dropping them into the gallery album directories? mrph! :mad: |
|
Posts: 7994
Ugh. Who is your provider?
The bad news: you have to have a graphics library installed for Gallery to work.
The good news: we're going to add functionality to let Gallery use ImageMagick very soon (like this weekend) in CVS so you can get back up and running with that pretty soon.
Posts: 4
LiquidWeb. I have 3 separate accounts with them, and I'm not "average joe user" (I AM a professional in the industry), but that doesn't count for anything apparently. They feel they still have to go the childish route and suspend my account to "get my attention."
Does ImageMagick keep it light on the system resource usage? I've got a 15% cap that I have to stay under. I've been told that NetPBM will spike up to 100%.
Thanks much..
Kathie
Posts: 7994
The ImageMagick code is checked in. You can either get the latest code from CVS, or you can download a snapshot of 1.3.2-cvs-b6 after 3 AM today (PST).
ImageMagick is much lighter on the system, hopefully light enough to escape your ISPs detection :smile:
Posts: 4
Woo! Fab! Keeping my fingers crossed...
I'm noticing that ImageMagick is taking up a huuuuuge amount of space here. I'm wondering if are there any parts of this we can safely dump off, for a slimmer install?
Cheers,
Kathie
:grin:
Posts: 7994
Good question. I'll talk to Vallimar to see what we can do about that. The "convert" binary (the workhorse of ImageMagick) is dynamically linked to about 25 different libraries so the odds are not good that we're going to wind up with a small executable, but we may be able to lighten the load a little bit. In the meantime, there's a good chance that your ISP has it installed already (though I guess you don't want to raise any suspicion by asking them about it :smile: )
Posts: 13
Kathie -
I'm in the same boat with Liquid Web. Until now I couldn't say a bad thing about them, but I accidentally deleted my albumbs (oops) and needed their help with getting things back in order. I asked them to help out and that's when they saw the NetPBM folder.
This was the first I heard about their issue with NetPBM...
"Netbpm binaries are NOT allowed on our servers... I will delete the folder for you however if you do not agree to remove the binaries I will suspend your account."
Now I have no idea up until this point what these binaries are. They just came out of the blue with it. If you search you won't find one piece of information in their TOS or manual about not allowing these binaries.
I also have 3 accounts with Liquid Web and they are paid a year in advance. I think they could have said it a little nicer and explained what the problem was.
Anyway, I just tried to install Galleries on two of the sites and couldn't due to no NetPBM binaries :sad: When Gallery is up and running it's amazingly simple to use and is by far the best gallery I've come across.
Mike
PS - Could have the NetPBM folder on another server? I have some Comcast web space and was wondering if it would take a url?
Posts: 12
mj - Yes, Liquid Web has been much less than helpful during this entire situation. I also went through their TOS and found nothing that would have warned us about NetPBM binaries. When I sent in a question as to why NetPBM violated TOS, I got an abrupt response that basically threatened to shut down my account if they found the files in it. Oh, and then they put in a sales pitch at the end suggesting I cough up some big money for a virtual dedicated server, in which case they wouldn't care if I had NetPBM installed. Of course, that would be 3x what I'm paying now. Kathie and I have both complained to LW about how they've handled this situation, and we've both been brushed off with a "we've noted your concern," and a sales pitch.
Kathie asked them about using ImageMagick instead, but she expressed concern about how much space the files take up. LW's immediate response was that they don't want ImageMagick running either, until Kathie pointed out they only use about 4% of the CPU processes. We finally got a positive response from LW and the tech guy said he'd consider making ImageMagick globally available to customers, so we each wouldn't have to go through and install it.
Kathie and I have been discussing consolidating our accounts and upgrading to a virtual dedicated server, but frankly, I'm pissed at LW and I'd really rather not give them any more of my money. So, does anyone have any suggestions for a good web host? I've got several domains I can move.
Posts: 7994
That sucks. I'm not surprised that ISPs get aggravated by NetPBM -- they can be pretty heavy. ImageMagick is much lighter and if they install it on the system for common usage it shouldn't be that bad. Either way, I'm sorry to hear that you guys had to go through this hassle.
If you're going to use ImageMagick, get the latest CVS update (b8), as it has a fix to the rotation code. b7 with ImageMagick rotates images the wrong way :sad:
Finally, if you're really seriously thinking about changing ISPs, I recommend anything from the <!-- BBCode Start --><A HREF="http://gallery.sourceforge.net/wiki.php?page=Web%20Hosting%20Referral%20Page" TARGET="_blank">Gallery Web Hosting Referrals</A><!-- BBCode End --> page. We've tested those ISPs, they're friendly to Gallery users, and we get a small kickback if you register there.
Posts: 4
It's actually a loophole in their TOS that they're exploiting. They forbid anything that eats up more than 19% of the CPU processes, and allegedly, NetPBM does. However, I sat the other day and watched the processes on the server one of my accounts runs on, and things like Webalizer and Ikonboard frequently well above this limit. I saw one instance of Webalizer go above 26% at one point.
Since NetPBM runs as the user 'nobody' (which is what Apache/PHP, etc. run as), they've not been able to pin down until now who's had it. (Although... perhaps someone should point them to the man pages for 'find'. I think they'll find that a wee bit enlightening.)
I used to work in a major ISP's TOS department for a few years (I won't say who, but, they're pretty prominent in the news right now for some, ahem, accounting troubles), and we never up and terminated/shut down someone's account without warning "just to get their attention" (which is how LW put it to me -- they just wanted to get my attention). A simple 'hey, you've violating our TOS item 'blah' for 'blah' would have been sufficient.
Well, it's comforting to know Pamela and I aren't alone in this. I get the feeling our friends at LW are going to be losing [quite] a few accounts over how they handled this. Is that a tear in my eye for them? Uhh... no. :cry:
So far so good still on using ImageMagick.
~K.
Posts: 13
I agree with everything you've said about LW. It's too bad, they've always been great and their servers are up most of the time. I've been quite happy with them up to now. I wonder if they're having troubles over there. Their customer support takes more then a day to get back to me now. It's used to be much quicker. And like you said, no warning about NetPBM, just a threat. Nice.
I'll post my new question in another message. It's a winner!
Posts: 5
I use phpWebHosting.com and love it. They have ALL NetPBM binaries installed, and they have quite a few phpWS systems running on it as well. I've never had them give me any grief about anything. And all for $9.95 a month...
Mike :wink:
Posts: 12
Well, Liquid Web has remained very uncooperative. So, I'm in the process of moving my sites to one of the Gallery-recommended hosts, <!-- BBCode Start --><A HREF="http://opensourcehost.com" TARGET="_blank">OpenSourceHost</A><!-- BBCode End -->. So far, they've been GREAT. First they promptly answered numerous questions before I even signed up, and the quality of customer service has been just as great since then. Tech support questions are answered within hours, even on the weekends and evenings. And, the pricing plans are really really good. The fact that OSH already has NetPBM *and* ImageMagick installed for all customers to use is only icing on the cake.