Attachement Limits?
John R.
Posts: 1,376
There seems to be a limit on attachment length, and this may also be having an adverse affect on previous attachments. (See the Prop Forum for more info).
Comments
Just tried a couple of the pdf files in XBEE tutorial draft chapters and they are corrupt. One small one 63kb a post of edits also was corrupt. For that one size should not be an issue.
I don't understand why you set new limits smaller than the old limits.
on the new forum:
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?t=124469
(attachments on the first post)
on the old forum:
http://forums.parallaxinc.com/forums/default.aspx?f=33&m=475012
The second file, on the old forum is listed as 582KB, and on the new forum, it is listed as 63.0KB.
From what I can tell, the file limit for Zip files is 976.6KB on the forum, so the original size should not have been too "big" to work on the new forum.
[Edit:] I forgot to mention (although it may be obvious) that the .zip file in the new forum cannot be unziped, due to it now being corrupt/incomplete.
Hopefully that is helpful.
--trodoss
as this new SW is a step in te right direction but its IMHO buggy.
If it was me doing this I would have had 10 or so members crashtest it for a few months and see what qurks there are ,.Like the atachmemt s issue .
then whipe the new site clean . and copy over the data from the old site.
and READONLY the old one for at least a year if possable . then wipe the old one ..
Peter KG6LSE
of 2M but new post 1meg ( or what ever) I would be pleased to no end .
One soluiton is to offer a DVD rom set of the forum as a standalone ..
I am part of a costuming forum that migrated to a new server.. we had no way to transfer the old data so I backed up my friends posts on the old forum by copy paste in to Open Office .org and they work great .
the files are not small but I got everyting I wanted on to a CD .
I was thinking of doing the same here . but I was under the impression everything was safe and the only glitch was the name login issue ..
Peter KG6LSE
Is the attachment truncation (see example posted) something that will be addressed, or should individuals who have posted code/PDFs/etc over a that are over 63KB plan on having to edit/re-upload these attachments?
I know in the Hydra forum at least that there is a lot of excellent code (things like Dodgey Kong) that is not in the OBEX for one reason or another that may be "lost" once the old forum is taken offline. I am sure that there is the same sort situation across all of the other forums.
--trodoss
Going forward, we are replacing any identified corrupt attachments and images using the files from the old forums site.
Hi Jim Ewald
It is NOT only zip files it is next all attached files FROM old Forum that are corupt.
Only files that had sizes that was smaller as limits on NEW forum that are OK.
Very Frustrating for most of us.
My guess is as YOU need re-copy all (atachment) files from OLD forum to have it correct.
Hi Jim Ewalds
Look on this my thread. None of files attached are correct
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?t=123551
I was looking at some of the posts on the old site and found several instances where a member had to make multiple posts just to get all of the project pictures attached. Now that we're ready to repost the attachments, this would be a good time to work out the number of posts and attachment sizes.
The file sizes for all attachments have been increased. I am also preparing to increase the dimensions for image types where we can create thumbnails for those images. [@Sapieha - how about 1920 x 1200?]. For other image types, we need to preserve the page layout which means that we need to limit the width to 800 pixels. The height limit is currently 800 pixels. Maybe that needs to go to 1200 pixels.
Something that may, or may not, have a bearing on this issue: In the old forum, an image that was too wide would screw up the entire page view, requiring it to be horizontally scrolled to read text in all posts that flowed off the edge of the page. In the new forum, too-wide embedded images affect only the posts to which they're attached, since individual posts get horizontal scrollbars, if they're too wide for the screen. On the one hand, that's reason enough to limit embedded image sizes. On the other hand, if someone wants to screw up their own post by making it unwieldy to read, maybe we should let them.
Frankly, I can see no justification for posting an image wider than 800 pixels. Anything wider than that can almost always be cropped to highlight an area of interest. If someone wants to post something bigger, it doesn't absolutely have to be embedded in the text.
How's that for direction?
-Phil
Hi Jim Ewald.
Read my last post in this thread.
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?t=125523
Inline = embedded Images
As I write in it.
Attachments that shows as thumbnails NO need limits of X-Y
Inline images IF it is possible CAN You handle with additional INSERTION code That Resizes them to page size on USER end ---> sends full size BUT Users EXPLORER resizes it to page size currently used.
That give always correct image size even on PDA's and other Devices type Phone's
Many Internet pages use that technique so it must be possible.
The height and width limits are applied only to attachments of the following types: bmp, gif, jpe, jpg, jpeg, png, psd, tif and tiff. The site will attempt to resize an image attachment that is larger than the dimension limits as it is stored to the server. The thumbnail is then generated from the resized image.
In the example attachment I was using (1320 x 768 ), I found that the image was available in its original uncompressed state as long as the image dimension limits were set higher that the actual dimensions of the image. However, once the limits were decreased to values below the actual dimensions of the image attachment, the server compressed the image to fit within the limits. This impacted the image quality.
In the case where the limits were set to 2000 x 1200 pixels, I could embed the image successfully but doing so caused a severe page width overrun for that post. Phipi pointed this out in his post and it does look ugly. The current site software does not support a dynamic sizing of these large images. We may be able to simulate such an action by supplying an inline style. Failing that, we are left with at least three possibilities;
Which way would you like this to go?
My answers included with QUOTE.
One of my pet peeves from the old forum was images that were too wide messing up the page. In a prior post, I misstated what the new forum does when this happens. Indeed, the entire view screen gets a horizontal scrollbar, instead of just the post with the big image. The difference is that posts that are not too wide get resized dynamically to fit the view screen, but scroll off to the left when the horizontal scrollbar is activated. This is still pretty annoying.
I think the solution is this: restrict all uploaded images to 800 x 800. If someone wants to post something bigger, they can always put it in a zip file and post it that way.
-Phil
Hi Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
Very BAD if Pictures will be restricted to that X-Y sizes.
In my case --- I have WinRAR - that I BUY --- it can't give me ZIP archives only open that ones. If I need BUY now ZIP --- Simple impossible to me --- NO money for that! . Only thing for me in that case -- END posting anything that need pictures else END post on forum at all.
On other way it give to much stages to posting anything --- Many of people will simply end post Picture attachments that need that else post ones that will be resized --- AND UNUSABLE
That will decrease Forums usability much more any one of You THINK
AND as I see it if this Server program can't handle simple additions to EMBED pictures in dynamically RE-SIZABLE on USER end --- that is very bad --- > It is Computer-Program that control YOU -
Now answer me ---- If may days on this forum are ENDED
I'm not sure why you think you'd have to pay for a utility to create ZIP archives. The web is crawling with ones that you can download and use for free. It doesn't have to be WinZip. A lot of file types need to be zipped to be uploaded to the forum, including .exe, sound, and movie files. It's a reasonable limitation and something we all have to deal with. Requiring it now for extra large images is not such a bad thing, and people will still be able to view your pictures full size.
-Phil
I see now You are changed Sizes of images ---> BUT look on my attachments Both as attachment and in ones in ZIP file.
Look mostly on FILE sizes in ZIP file ---> that will show You that You limit file size on most optimal IMAGE format but open It to one that require next most so much file space on SERVER.
Same IMAGE
JPG = 353KB
PNG = 684KB
_______
Ps If You look on ZIP file size and add sizes JPG+PNG = 1037KB. Zipping them give next NOT any advantage in file size. BUT if You open both formats from Thumbnails You will directly see with one are READABLE
Added 2 more ZIP files for Yours reference to have SAME image in X-Y measurements And what FILE sizes them will have.
The sample images at 1920 x 1200 were well under 1 MB for gif, jpg and png file formats. Setting the maximum file size to 2 MB should be more than adequate. The bmp and psd formats have a new limit of 3 MB.
Placing images within archive files (Zip, Rar, Lzh, etc) saves between 2 and 30% of the original file. In most cases, the compression advantage is minimal. Still, archive files can be useful in gathering a number of images into a single attachment.
This should put the image attachment issues to rest.
Thanks.
2000 x1200 Is Very Good.
File sizes are good optimum to all Images to.