System Requirements?

SamirD

I'm having to reboot my computers about 6 times a day or more when working in Smugmug all day. What specs do I need to have to avoid having to do this? :scratch This happens on several different systems, mainly running xp pro. Any assistance appreciated.

Andy

You shouldn't have to reboot.
http://www.smugmug.com/visitor-help/supported-systems

I'm guessing that old OS and maybe your browser aren't so good at releasing memory? Without lots of details I couldn't say.

SamirD

Andy wrote:

You shouldn't have to reboot.
http://www.smugmug.com/visitor-help/supported-systems

I'm guessing that old OS and maybe your browser aren't so good at releasing memory? Without lots of details I couldn't say.

Thank you for the quick reply Andy. I agree that it's probably related to memory issues. This has always been an issue in software design and probably always will be.

The link above lists the software, but not any recommended hardware specs such as memory, CPU, etc. I can run the software, but if the hardware doesn't keep up with it in the way that the SM uses it, then the hardware needs an upgrade.
Anyone have any good experiences with working all day on a system and it not crash? What are you using? Where did you buy it?

Andy

Samir, one of my systems, a Win XP System with 1gb RAM all day long and never have to reboot it, I'm sorry.

Allen

There seems to be a problem with Firefox and free Zonealarm. FF stops after running awhile. I have to reboot often.

From this site

If Firefox stops loading websites or [URL="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_hangs#Hang_at_exit"]hangs at exit[/URL] and you cannot end the firefox.exe 
process in Windows Task Manager, this is a known ZoneAlarm firewall isssue on 
Windows Vista. You will need to restart the computer before you can reopen Firefox. 
Uninstall ZoneAlarm and either use the Windows Firewall or install another firewall.

SamirD

Thank you both for your replies.

Andy, what's the cpu of that xp 1gb system? I just noticed I only have 512mb, so that's part of the problem. But the cpu may also be a part of it.

Allen, I don't run any type of virus/spyware checker/norton or anything, so I'm sure that's not it. I even turn off all the windows security stuff. I haven't run any of that for years. I just make sure I don't use IE and turn off all the auto-downloading options in all browsers. I've never had issues with a system slowing down over the years. And if they do, I use system restore to bring them back to a previous fast state.

With as much time as I spend on Smugmug, I'm afraid I'm losing a few hours a week in productivity due to the hardware specs.

SamirD

I recently upgraded my fastest system, an hp dc5750 to 3gb of ram and am still having to reboot after working on a thousand or two images. Is this normal?

rainforest1155

Did you try just to close the browser? Watch the Task Manager (right-click on taskbar to open it) and see if that frees up memory.
The Task manager should also tell you which processes are taking up memory and CPU power.

If you don't have any security software, malware and viruses could still enter your system, especially if you don't have the latest security updates for Windows. I wouldn't recommend having no security software at all.
Viruses nowadays are often designed to run silently in the background, sending out spam or monitoring what you're doing and trying to steal login data and passwords etc. So no security software at all is a bad idea in my opinion.

Sebastian

SamirD

rainforest1155 wrote:

Did you try just to close the browser? Watch the Task Manager (right-click on taskbar to open it) and see if that frees up memory.
The Task manager should also tell you which processes are taking up memory and CPU power.

It's definitely the browser that's using all the resources since it's the only thing running. (Even the system tray is empty). The only thing I've been able to nail it down to is flash must be hanging up after viewing so many videos. It's a pain when I've got over a 100 videos to review.

rainforest1155 wrote:

If you don't have any security software, malware and viruses could still enter your system, especially if you don't have the latest security updates for Windows. I wouldn't recommend having no security software at all.
Viruses nowadays are often designed to run silently in the background, sending out spam or monitoring what you're doing and trying to steal login data and passwords etc. So no security software at all is a bad idea in my opinion.

They could enter, if you don't shut off how they come in, such as automatic updates and automatic anything, know what web sites you go to, know what they put on your system, etc, etc.

Most viruses come via email. I NEVER click on a link in email, and do google and DNS searches on those that I don't recognize. It's a bit more work, but it's kept me ahead of even the most nasty viruses that were only caught by the security softwares until after they became well known.

What gets me is that SM is the only web site out of the hundreds I visit that seems to bog the system down. I know there's a lot of JS overhead, but it if it's too much, even my visitors will go away.

SamirD

It's been a few months, and while I'm just accustomed to rebooting whenever the flash seems to konk out, I can't help but notice the tremendous client-side overhead required just to view the galleries. Are there any plans to thin this down a bit?

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

It's been a few months, and while I'm just accustomed to rebooting whenever the flash seems to konk out, I can't help but notice the tremendous client-side overhead required just to view the galleries. Are there any plans to thin this down a bit?

Thin what down? Can you be more specific? Can you also give a page example, and gallery style?

We are deeply concerned with speed, which is why we spend $millions on making us one of the fastest sites out there like ours, according to the monitoring services.

SamirD

It may be the customization that I have on my site, but check out these two gallery links on a 2.4ghz XP system with 1gb of ram and note the delay in the thumbnails populating. But this delay isn't from the Internet connection, but rather from some sort of client-side scripting as the images get parsed and organized.
http://newpics.huntsvillecarscene.com/gallery/13669633_xzdRw
http://newpics.huntsvillecarscene.com/gallery/11699636_v9SRY

It's also the reason the galleries don't work on a lot of phones without using the /m/ version of the site, which I don't have. For a lot of my clients that have older systems, or ones riddled with garbage slowing down the browser, they may get frustrated before they see all the images in the gallery. And I have no idea how many of them may run into this because only one out of a hundred will try to tell you.

And I run into the same delay myself. Whether on a Athlon64 X2 with 3GB of ram, or thin clients running xp embedded with 1gb of ram, or a 2.4ghz HP laptop with 1gb of ram, SM has more of a delay, more overhead than 90% of the sites I visit, and this includes sites like www.6speedonline.com that have hundreds of ad banners that load on each page.

So I'm wondering if there's plans to reduce all this client-side overhead?

Andy

I'm curious why you're running WinXP, that's almost a 10year old operating system, no? 10 years ago, images on the web were tiny, there's a lot more stuff in SmugMug now, too...

Curiously, how does this site perform for you? http://cmac.smugmug.com/gallery/2504559_f3ta9#131481399_ZnZmK

Andy

http://screencast.com/t/IPndrRPlD there's your site opening on my WinXP system, that's pretty quick, no?

I dunno why Screencast seems to speed it up- that's not intentional on my part! However, your site and photos come up instantly for me on WinXP (IE6, even!).

Andy

Here's another, Firefox 3.6 on WinXP http://screencast.com/t/4oVuOAo7vQt this one didn't get sped up by Jing

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

I'm curious why you're running WinXP, that's almost a 10year old operating system, no? 10 years ago, images on the web were tiny, there's a lot more stuff in SmugMug now, too...

I feel like I'm having to answer why I still drive my 1994 Accord--because it works day-in and day-out. Newer isn't always better. I don't have issues on the other 90% of the sites I use XP on. Why does SM have to be different?

And forget about me, what about my clients? According to Analytics, statcounter, and sitemeter, over 50% of them are still using XP.

Andy wrote: »

Curiously, how does this site perform for you? http://cmac.smugmug.com/gallery/2504559_f3ta9#131481399_ZnZmK

On the WYSE thin client, it loaded decently quick and then almost locked up the machine for some reason. This was probably due to some sort of scripting in the page since it happened after all the images loaded.

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

I feel like I'm having to answer why I still drive my 1994 Accord--because it works day-in and day-out. Newer isn't always better. I don't have issues on the other 90% of the sites I use XP on. Why does SM have to be different?

And forget about me, what about my clients? According to Analytics, statcounter, and sitemeter, over 50% of them are still using XP.

On the WYSE thin client, it loaded decently quick and then almost locked up the machine for some reason. This was probably due to some sort of scripting in the page since it happened after all the images loaded.

It was just a question, Samir. But my comment stands, the web has changed dramatically since XP came out

Did you look at the vid I posted? Your site comes up lickety-split for me in WinXP

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

On the WYSE thin client, it loaded decently quick and then almost locked up the machine for some reason. This was probably due to some sort of scripting in the page since it happened after all the images loaded.

Samir, what is a WYSE thin client?

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

http://screencast.com/t/IPndrRPlD there's your site opening on my WinXP system, that's pretty quick, no?

I dunno why Screencast seems to speed it up- that's not intentional on my part! However, your site and photos come up instantly for me on WinXP (IE6, even!).

Andy wrote: »

Here's another, Firefox 3.6 on WinXP http://screencast.com/t/4oVuOAo7vQt this one didn't get sped up by Jing

Yep, saw both of those. What's the specs of the system that you loaded it on and what's the Internet connection? I've seen it load pretty quickly on new iMacs at the Apple store. They have a 8m/4m connection.

Andy wrote: »

Samir, what is a WYSE thin client?

Yeah, I know, not supported, yada, yada. It still works for 90% of the sites out there and can't get thwarted by viruses or anything.

Andy wrote: »

It was just a question, Samir. But my comment stands, the web has changed dramatically since XP came out

Agreed that it has changed a lot, but if my clients haven't moved with it, I have to accommodate them or I'll lose them. And it definitely doesn't hurt that I'm as behind as they are so I can experience issues first-hand.

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Samir, what is a WYSE thin client?

I didn't read this question right...too much going on. A thin client runs Windows XP Embedded, a solid-state version of XP that allows the thin client to be a toaster--turn it on and it works. Because it doesn't save anything, it can't be affected by malware, spyware, even viruses.

Oddly enough, it's both my thin clients that have no problems with upload sessions. They're basically dedicated machines for uploading that always work.

gecko0

...just to throw in a possibility...if you're working so long in IE (especially an older version), check your temporary internet file settings. IE can puke after it hits the cache limit and is constantly having to cycle first-in/first-out to deal with all the new images you're loading (you mentioned 1-2 thousand images at a time).

Also, the two links you wanted tested...the first loaded instantly for me (all thumbs popped in at the same time after <2 seconds)...the second link took 12-13 seconds before the thumbs loaded. Not browser/OS/hardware specific, as I'm on W7/IE8.

.02

SamirD

gecko0 wrote: »

...just to throw in a possibility...if you're working so long in IE (especially an older version), check your temporary internet file settings. IE can puke after it hits the cache limit and is constantly having to cycle first-in/first-out to deal with all the new images you're loading (you mentioned 1-2 thousand images at a time).

I'm only using FF. I don't trust IE at all. But the same issue may be happening with FF although the cache settings are set to zero.

gecko0 wrote: »

Also, the two links you wanted tested...the first loaded instantly for me (all thumbs popped in at the same time after <2 seconds)...the second link took 12-13 seconds before the thumbs loaded. Not browser/OS/hardware specific, as I'm on W7/IE8.

Thank you for testing the links. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > I'm actually surprised the second one loaded slower--that's using a standard SM theme and no customization. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > That much of a delay would be a problem with my clients. :cry They'd either hit refresh or move on to something else.

Andy

Samir, 5 of us just checked - and from around the world no less, and this gallery http://newpics.huntsvillecarscene.com/gallery/11699636_v9SRY#825606746_jeER9 came up in about 2 seconds max (instantly in 1 second for me, here in NY on Cablevision Internet).

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Samir, 5 of us just checked - and from around the world no less, and this gallery http://newpics.huntsvillecarscene.com/gallery/11699636_v9SRY#825606746_jeER9 came up in about 2 seconds max (instantly in 1 second for me, here in NY on Cablevision Internet).

Yeah, I'm thinking it was just a fluke, but I'm looking at the statistics from this one link. Of the maybe 100 or so people that looked at it, one said they had an issue. Now, if 10,000 people look at it, that means 100 will have an issue. It's only 1%, but that's if 100 people looked at it. If it's more like 20 people, that percentage skyrockets.

That's why I'm wondering if there's any plans to thin-down the client-side overhead. If it hiccups, the page doesn't load. Worse come worse, I'll have to hire someone to thin it down. But that sounds kinda extreme.

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

Yeah, I'm thinking it was just a fluke, but I'm looking at the statistics from this one link. Of the maybe 100 or so people that looked at it, one said they had an issue. Now, if 10,000 people look at it, that means 100 will have an issue. It's only 1%, but that's if 100 people looked at it. If it's more like 20 people, that percentage skyrockets.

That's why I'm wondering if there's any plans to thin-down the client-side overhead. If it hiccups, the page doesn't load. Worse come worse, I'll have to hire someone to thin it down. But that sounds kinda extreme.

Hi Samir, the overwhelming response we get from customer is 'how fast Smuggy is' - and I mean that around the world, not in CA backyard. Our site requires a lot to do the things you and all our customers have asked us to do over the years. And we -always- look for ways to trim things down, and make things even faster. And $ is no object.

jfriend

Andy wrote: »

Hi Samir, the overwhelming response we get from customer is 'how fast Smuggy is' - and I mean that around the world, not in CA backyard. Our site requires a lot to do the things you and all our customers have asked us to do over the years. And we -always- look for ways to trim things down, and make things even faster. And $ is no object.

Andy, I do wonder why certain design choices were made if speed of display was really the primary object. For example, in the Smugmug view, the browser has to load a whole bunch of separate javascript files, process them, execute them, then issue another RPC request to Smugmug's servers to get the actual gallery contents, wait for that response, then dynamically create the thumbnails and main image tags which then cause the browser to start request those images. That means that the display of the most important objects on the page are gated by the initial page load, JS processing and then that first RPC roundtrip time. Particularly when a gallery is being opened to the first page (which is the 75% use case), a significant amount of this time could be avoided by just including the RPC data in the initial page load and avoiding the separate RPC call to get that data.

In Firebug's Net speed monitoring module, one can clearly see how a lot of the page load is held back until that first RPC request is completed.

If speed of displaying the photos on the page were really the primary goal, the initial page display would not require this separate roundtrip to the server to get the gallery contents before the browser can even start fetching the images. Plus this separate roundtrip to your server is adding significantly to the number of server requests that your servers must process.

I would also wonder if it would make sense to consolidate all the separate JS and CSS files too since the first time a visitor comes to your site (or anytime they come after those have expired out of the cache or anytime they visit for the first time on a new device), all those separate files have to be fetched and downloaded. Since browsers have a max number of connections they will make at once and because each file must start a new request, downloading lots of separate things in serial can be slower than downloading a smaller number of things that are larger.

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

Andy, I do wonder why certain design choices were made

Stay tuned, some awesomeness is afoot, magic in the making, sorcery-a-brewing!

jfriend

Andy wrote: »

Stay tuned, some awesomeness is afoot, magic in the making, sorcery-a-brewing!

Is this newness going to specifically make galleries load faster? Or just new ways to display galleries?

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

Is this newness going to specifically make galleries load faster? Or just new ways to display galleries?

Stay tuned, I can't say any more.

jfriend

Andy wrote: »

Stay tuned, I can't say any more.

So you won't say whether it actually addresses my previous comment about loading speed or not? But, you posted it in response to that. OK, now I'm confused. It either does or doesn't apply to my previous comment.

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

So you won't say whether it actually addresses my previous comment about loading speed or not? But, you posted it in response to that. OK, now I'm confused. It either does or doesn't apply to my previous comment.

It does. Stay tuned.