Thank you for the clarification. Is there a way to force one or the other? Perhaps the better question is as I travel over the next few days would it be helpful for me to compare the two for you?
Tests showed a much higher bandwidth utilization by each upload session, just shy of 2mb when usually just topping 1mb. At least a 40% speed improvement. Good work guys!
Now, if it could only send multiple files simultaneously so I don't have to divide up the upload into multiple sessions and we'd have a winner.
Tests showed a much higher bandwidth utilization by each upload session, just shy of 2mb when usually just topping 1mb. At least a 40% speed improvement. Good work guys!
Now, if it could only send multiple files simultaneously so I don't have to divide up the upload into multiple sessions and we'd have a winner.
IIRC, we're sending 3 at a time, though some browsers won't show that.
I remember that on the old IE uploader (remember that one?) which would send three and show three being sent. The new html5 one does that too, but under FF, simple only shows progress of one at a time. Any way for me to change this or is it browser dependent?
I remember that on the old IE uploader (remember that one?) which would send three and show three being sent. The new html5 one does that too, but under FF, simple only shows progress of one at a time. Any way for me to change this or is it browser dependent?
Yal, send a bunch at the same time and lock up my internet till the upload is
complete. Might work for overnight but would be a PITA if me or anyone in my
household was on. Grandkids would really be pissed off playing Black Opps on
the XBOX.
Yal, send a bunch at the same time and lock up my internet till the upload is
complete. Might work for overnight but would be a PITA if me or anyone in my
household was on. Grandkids would really be pissed off playing Black Opps on
the XBOX.
Same issue here (teenage online gamers in the house). These guys like Andy and Samir are talking about upload bandwidth and speed benefits from the new endpoint that relatively few households have at home.
I'd like to see multi-gallery upload support in one overnight upload session and a ton more robustness and error handling when things go wrong. The error handling is still ridiculously poor. If something doesn't upload, you're left to redo the entire upload with duplicate suppression on. What's the big deal about recognizing which images didn't get uploaded, leaving those in the upload queue and letting you restart the upload again for just the failed images. That's how it should be done.
Then, add a little pause and retry logic for some types of failures and the uploader would finally just do what it's supposed to even when there's a little hiccup with the connection.
Yal, send a bunch at the same time and lock up my internet till the upload is
complete. Might work for overnight but would be a PITA if me or anyone in my
household was on. Grandkids would really be pissed off playing Black Opps on
the XBOX.
If they complain, just charge them for the Internet service, lol.
Yal, send a bunch at the same time and lock up my internet till the upload is
complete. Might work for overnight but would be a PITA if me or anyone in my
household was on. Grandkids would really be pissed off playing Black Opps on
the XBOX.
Al, I'm uploading thousands of photos right now and my kid is playing Black Ops on his PS3.
Same issue here (teenage online gamers in the house). These guys like Andy and Samir are talking about upload bandwidth and speed benefits from the new endpoint that relatively few households have at home.
I don't know what you mean by this, I have a 12year old, in fact, he's playing COD right now and I'm uploading a load of files, nary a complaint from him.
I don't know what you mean by this, I have a 12year old, in fact, he's playing COD right now and I'm uploading a load of files, nary a complaint from him.
Yeah, because you have a configuration that is more capable than 95% of American households. I'm really surprised you don't know what kind of bandwidth, user experience and upload issues your average uploading customer has.
I absolutely cannot upload anything at the same time as my son plays online games or he gets so much lag in the performance that he can't play effectively. I have the same issue with BackBlaze automatic online backup though, for reasons I don't know, BackBlaze uploads aren't quite as much of a problem as Smugmug uploads - though both are felt by anyone in the house using the internet.
Perhaps you would prioritize things differently if you lived with what the typical customer has.
Yeah, because you have a configuration that is more capable than 95% of American households. I'm really surprised you don't know what kind of bandwidth, user experience and upload issues your average uploading customer has.
I absolutely cannot upload anything at the same time as my son plays online games or he gets so much lag in the performance that he can't play effectively. I have the same issue with BackBlaze automatic online backup though, for reasons I don't know, BackBlaze uploads aren't quite as much of a problem as Smugmug uploads - though both are felt by anyone in the house using the internet.
Perhaps you would prioritize things differently if you lived with what the typical customer has.
OK John, thanks for the feedback! We still are seeing a huuuuuuuge improvement in upload speed, and reliability, which is what this improvement is ABOUT.
OK John, thanks for the feedback! We still are seeing a huuuuuuuge improvement in upload speed, and reliability, which is what this improvement is ABOUT.
No difference in upload speed for me. I'm bandwidth limited. Apparently, nothing was done to move my bits meaningfully faster and I think it's a bit misleading to claim big speed advances that most home uploaders won't see. Nice for those who have lots of upload bandwidth, I guess or those who upload from work.
Wish I had 6MBps up like you guys, but I'm on a somewhat typical home ADSL: 3MBps down, 0.8MBps up. My rowing regatta or soccer tournament uploads can take 12 hours to complete across dozens of galleries (if nothing goes wrong). When a 12 hour upload glitches and fails and forces you to start over, it can delay the image availability by a day or more and might take an hour or more to reconfigure the upload to start it over. Better software (like the way BackBlaze works) would just complete the job without human intervention no matter what interruptions happened along the way.
I suspect that if you guys experienced these kinds of issues like some of your customers, you'd offer some of the upload features we've been asking for for years.
Thank you for the clarification. Is there a way to force one or the other? Perhaps the better question is as I travel over the next few days would it be helpful for me to compare the two for you?
Brad,
You can use the current version of the LR plugin and the old version...one will use the old endpoint and other the new one.
No difference in upload speed for me. I'm bandwidth limited. Apparently, nothing was done to move my bits meaningfully faster and I think it's a bit misleading to claim big speed advances that most home uploaders won't see. Nice for those who have lots of upload bandwidth, I guess or those who upload from work.
The speed increases I saw was from better utilization of the available bandwidth. But even at 2mb, that's less than 50% of a 5mb pipe, so there is definitely a way to go. But it sure beats 1mb.
Wish I had 6MBps up like you guys, but I'm on a somewhat typical home ADSL: 3MBps down, 0.8MBps up. My rowing regatta or soccer tournament uploads can take 12 hours to complete across dozens of galleries (if nothing goes wrong). When a 12 hour upload glitches and fails and forces you to start over, it can delay the image availability by a day or more and might take an hour or more to reconfigure the upload to start it over. Better software (like the way BackBlaze works) would just complete the job without human intervention no matter what interruptions happened along the way.
I feel your pain. It's why I got 3 cable modems. When I started out, they only offered 6mb/384k as their top of the line service. Even with three of them, I barely got over 1mb upload speed. And I was generating gigs of data each weekend. Now that they've upgraded their services (and I haven't upgraded cameras), I have faster overall upload speeds available to me.
I suspect that if you guys experienced these kinds of issues like some of your customers, you'd offer some of the upload features we've been asking for for years.
And it was because of the bad experiences with uploads that I got an account with Exposure Manager for their FTP upload capability. This system better utilized my bandwidth and made the overall process more painless. I was transitioning over while trying to figure out a solution for videos when SM announced videos. That kept me from leaving. But the annoyances with the upload process are still here years later.
And I have to agree that if SM experienced just one day in our shoes, some things would be radically different. I've noticed that Bay area companies seem to disregard that the rest of the world isn't like their back yard, and they have a really strong drive to deliver products that cater to the backyard infrastructure rather than that of the rest of th world.
Yeah, I read his posts. I was referring to your posts about your speed gains. That's not what most people see and I think it's appropriate to represent the side of things that does represent most of your customers.
And I have to agree that if SM experienced just one day in our shoes, some things would be radically different. I've noticed that Bay area companies seem to disregard that the rest of the world isn't like their back yard, and they have a really strong drive to deliver products that cater to the backyard infrastructure rather than that of the rest of th world.
That's actually not correct, I'm located in Australia and get upload speeds of 2Mbps to SmugMug.
And I have to agree that if SM experienced just one day in our shoes, some things would be radically different. I've noticed that Bay area companies seem to disregard that the rest of the world isn't like their back yard, and they have a really strong drive to deliver products that cater to the backyard infrastructure rather than that of the rest of th world.
50% of our company is NOT in Silicon Valley / Bay Area. All over the US, West, Central, East, South. Ireland, Germany, Slovenia, Australia. We all work just like our customers do - typically cable connections that are the same ones available to SmuMug's customers. And, many of our heroes are also working pros that upload thousands of photos on deadline just like you. I myself use the system in the same way.
That's actually not correct, I'm located in Australia and get upload speeds of 2Mbps to SmugMug.
That's night and day compared to sub-1mb speeds like what John deals with. 256k, 386k, and 512k are still common. And I don't think these customers concerns are even attempting to be addressed. There's an air of 'oh, just upgrade' or 'it's just you'. Which is fine, but then there should be a minimum speed requirement stated for the service, like the browser requirement.
50% of our company is NOT in Silicon Valley / Bay Area.
Oh, I know that. I've just noticed that most companies in the Bay Area are living in a cloud9 version of reality, and it's reflected in their offerings at times. I've seen business models that suceed there because of the technology infrastructure and the culture that would never be viable business models in most mainstream US cities. And I'm seeing this more at SM as the company gets bigger--ignoring broken features, introducing new ones that are capturing pockets of people that are 'hip', and things along those lines.
My brother lives there in the city, and I went to a conference there at Google's SF office, so this is coming from some first-hand experience with the city and technology CEOs.
Just an opinion--I'm not meaning to be offensive. If I didn't care, I wouldn't tell you.
That's night and day compared to sub-1mb speeds like what John deals with. 256k, 386k, and 512k are still common. And I don't think these customers concerns are even attempting to be addressed. There's an air of 'oh, just upgrade' or 'it's just you'. Which is fine, but then there should be a minimum speed requirement stated for the service, like the browser requirement.
My speedtest result from Ireland to SmugMug. I upload to SmugMug without any problems, using all systems and browsers, wired and wireless. I do have to be patient if I am uploading a lot of photos but I just let it run overnight.
Just an fyi, so that people reading this thread understand that they can use SmugMug, without any problems or restrictions, with a slow dsl connection.
That's night and day compared to sub-1mb speeds like what John deals with. 256k, 386k, and 512k are still common. And I don't think these customers concerns are even attempting to be addressed. There's an air of 'oh, just upgrade' or 'it's just you'. Which is fine, but then there should be a minimum speed requirement stated for the service, like the browser requirement.
Why on earth would there be a minimum speed requirement? SmugMug works fine over modems. You can upload over 9600bps if you want to. It'll take some time - but it'll work fine. The majority of our customers are on 128k - 256k connections.
I seriously doubt that people paying for 128k upstream are surprised when SmugMug delivers only 128k. We certainly don't hear that from any of our customers. The overwhelming response we get is that we're crazy fast, and we hear from plenty of customers asking us to *turn down* upload speeds, like jfriend mentioned. (That's a real feature request in our tracker right now - I presume for shared connections - and we're looking into it).
What am I missing? When I look at your data in our logs, I see that you've got high throughput (2Mbps/file) and low error rates (less than 1%). What's the complaint here?
Comments
Thanks Brad but no - but we appreciate the offer!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Using it won't hurt.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Tests showed a much higher bandwidth utilization by each upload session, just shy of 2mb when usually just topping 1mb. At least a 40% speed improvement.
Now, if it could only send multiple files simultaneously so I don't have to divide up the upload into multiple sessions and we'd have a winner.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
IIRC, we're sending 3 at a time, though some browsers won't show that.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
It's browser-specific. Try it in Chrome
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
complete. Might work for overnight but would be a PITA if me or anyone in my
household was on. Grandkids would really be pissed off playing Black Opps on
the XBOX.
My Website index | My Blog
I'd like to see multi-gallery upload support in one overnight upload session and a ton more robustness and error handling when things go wrong. The error handling is still ridiculously poor. If something doesn't upload, you're left to redo the entire upload with duplicate suppression on. What's the big deal about recognizing which images didn't get uploaded, leaving those in the upload queue and letting you restart the upload again for just the failed images. That's how it should be done.
Then, add a little pause and retry logic for some types of failures and the uploader would finally just do what it's supposed to even when there's a little hiccup with the connection.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I absolutely cannot upload anything at the same time as my son plays online games or he gets so much lag in the performance that he can't play effectively. I have the same issue with BackBlaze automatic online backup though, for reasons I don't know, BackBlaze uploads aren't quite as much of a problem as Smugmug uploads - though both are felt by anyone in the house using the internet.
Perhaps you would prioritize things differently if you lived with what the typical customer has.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
OK John, thanks for the feedback! We still are seeing a huuuuuuuge improvement in upload speed, and reliability, which is what this improvement is ABOUT.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Wish I had 6MBps up like you guys, but I'm on a somewhat typical home ADSL: 3MBps down, 0.8MBps up. My rowing regatta or soccer tournament uploads can take 12 hours to complete across dozens of galleries (if nothing goes wrong). When a 12 hour upload glitches and fails and forces you to start over, it can delay the image availability by a day or more and might take an hour or more to reconfigure the upload to start it over. Better software (like the way BackBlaze works) would just complete the job without human intervention no matter what interruptions happened along the way.
I suspect that if you guys experienced these kinds of issues like some of your customers, you'd offer some of the upload features we've been asking for for years.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Brad,
You can use the current version of the LR plugin and the old version...one will use the old endpoint and other the new one.
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
Hey John, did you read Baldy's posts? Thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
And it was because of the bad experiences with uploads that I got an account with Exposure Manager for their FTP upload capability. This system better utilized my bandwidth and made the overall process more painless. I was transitioning over while trying to figure out a solution for videos when SM announced videos. That kept me from leaving. But the annoyances with the upload process are still here years later.
And I have to agree that if SM experienced just one day in our shoes, some things would be radically different. I've noticed that Bay area companies seem to disregard that the rest of the world isn't like their back yard, and they have a really strong drive to deliver products that cater to the backyard infrastructure rather than that of the rest of th world.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
That's actually not correct, I'm located in Australia and get upload speeds of 2Mbps to SmugMug.
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
I'm round about there too, on my fibre connetion. 1-2 on a bad day and 2-3 on a good day. On ADSL though, it's around 0.7.
Malte
50% of our company is NOT in Silicon Valley / Bay Area. All over the US, West, Central, East, South. Ireland, Germany, Slovenia, Australia. We all work just like our customers do - typically cable connections that are the same ones available to SmuMug's customers. And, many of our heroes are also working pros that upload thousands of photos on deadline just like you. I myself use the system in the same way.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
My brother lives there in the city, and I went to a conference there at Google's SF office, so this is coming from some first-hand experience with the city and technology CEOs.
Just an opinion--I'm not meaning to be offensive. If I didn't care, I wouldn't tell you.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
My speedtest result from Ireland to SmugMug. I upload to SmugMug without any problems, using all systems and browsers, wired and wireless. I do have to be patient if I am uploading a lot of photos but I just let it run overnight.
Just an fyi, so that people reading this thread understand that they can use SmugMug, without any problems or restrictions, with a slow dsl connection.
If I didn't know you cared, I wouldn't keep going on with you
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Why on earth would there be a minimum speed requirement? SmugMug works fine over modems. You can upload over 9600bps if you want to. It'll take some time - but it'll work fine. The majority of our customers are on 128k - 256k connections.
I seriously doubt that people paying for 128k upstream are surprised when SmugMug delivers only 128k. We certainly don't hear that from any of our customers. The overwhelming response we get is that we're crazy fast, and we hear from plenty of customers asking us to *turn down* upload speeds, like jfriend mentioned. (That's a real feature request in our tracker right now - I presume for shared connections - and we're looking into it).
What am I missing? When I look at your data in our logs, I see that you've got high throughput (2Mbps/file) and low error rates (less than 1%). What's the complaint here?