Ivancas
Well-known member
upscale?
Image Optimizer for XF 2.0 [Paid] 2.1.8
- Thread starter truonglv
- Start date
truonglv
Well-known member
exec function is required while using this add-on. Please ask your host to enable it.
Ivancas
Well-known member
I don't understand what you mean
truonglv
Well-known member
There is table below that block. It will give more detail you can check where attachments were increased.
truonglv
Well-known member
truonglv updated Image Optimizer for XF 2.0 with a new update entry:
2.1.4
Read the rest of this update entry...
2.1.4
Read the rest of this update entry...
Tom McIntyre
Active member
I want to purchase this addon but I have forgotten my password on your site and am not receiving the email with the link to provide a new password.
truonglv
Well-known member
Please provide your info in the PM
David G
Member
On Centos 7
I was getting compile error for pngquant
I had to modify the build.rs in the rust directory
added
bellow
I was getting compile error for pngquant
Code:
The following warnings were emitted during compilation:
warning: rwpng.c: In function ‘rwpng_create_row_pointers’:
warning: rwpng.c:126:5: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for(size_t row = 0; row < height; row++) {
warning: ^
warning: rwpng.c:126:5: note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code
warning: rwpng.c: In function ‘rwpng_read_image24_libpng’:
warning: rwpng.c:389:9: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mainprog_ptr->height; i++) {
warning: ^
warning: rwpng.c: In function ‘rwpng_write_image8’:
warning: rwpng.c:589:5: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for(unsigned int i = 0; i < mainprog_ptr->num_palette; i++) {
warning: ^
warning: pngquant.c: In function ‘pngquant_main_internal’:
warning: pngquant.c:343:9: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for(unsigned int i=0; i < pal->count; i++) {
warning: ^
warning: pngquant.c:343:9: note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code
warning: pngquant.c:364:5: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for(int i=0; i < options->num_files; i++) {
warning: ^
warning: pngquant.c: In function ‘set_palette’:
warning: pngquant.c:546:5: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for(unsigned int i=0; i < palette->count; i++) {
warning: ^
warning: pngquant.c: In function ‘prepare_output_image’:
warning: pngquant.c:749:5: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
warning: for(size_t row = 0; row < output_image->height; row++) {
warning: ^
error: failed to run custom build command for `pngquant v3.0.1I had to modify the build.rs in the rust directory
added
Code:
cc.flag_if_supported("-std=c99");
Code:
cc.warnings(false);David G
Member
Using Update last run info - i didn't see it execute on those items. Size didn't change
Also is there a way that we can run the optimizer on a rang or id's or just specific id's?
It seems a group of attachments and proxy images were missed - i noted the id numbers that need work.
Also looking at the proxy image cache with file size it looks like a few items were missed that could use an optimizer run.
Another thought on your suggestion. What do you think the best setting for image proxy lifetime is? Since the images can be reduced via this addon - I am thinking of setting to "0" or forever. This way there is no continuity lost in threads if post source goes down.
What's your opinion on this?
Also is there a way that we can run the optimizer on a rang or id's or just specific id's?
It seems a group of attachments and proxy images were missed - i noted the id numbers that need work.
Also looking at the proxy image cache with file size it looks like a few items were missed that could use an optimizer run.
Another thought on your suggestion. What do you think the best setting for image proxy lifetime is? Since the images can be reduced via this addon - I am thinking of setting to "0" or forever. This way there is no continuity lost in threads if post source goes down.
What's your opinion on this?
Last edited:
truonglv
Well-known member
Tom McIntyre
Active member
We have over 650,000 attachments to process. It is currently running with speed 5 and count 20 but it only seems to process 2 or 3 attachments every 5 minutes. What are the maximum safe values? Are there other parameters to improve the speed.
It looks like it will be about 2 years to process the current attachments at this rate.
It looks like it will be about 2 years to process the current attachments at this rate.
VBX Co
Well-known member
You may get better results by moving your XF cron to the server so it runs on a scheduled cycle.
Moshe1010
Well-known member
Yes
Ivancas
Well-known member
Do you have an example of how the cron command should look like?
VBX Co
Well-known member
Sort of - it will be different for your server/hosting - something like this (but if you're not comfortable or familiar with using command line on your server, maybe give it a miss):
XF 2.2 - Server cron instead of xenfor
I just recently upgraded to a dedicated server. I am trying to speed it up and help mitigate performance hits. WordPress cron was killing me. I have quite a few WP installs. So I disabled wp-cron and enabled my server to handle it (my hosting service). I'm wondering if I should do the same...
xenforo.com
Ivancas
Well-known member
@truonglv Can you make this addon compatible with this one?
xenforo.com
[DigitalPoint] App for Cloudflare®
What exactly does that addon not do that you are trying to do? It optimizes all images which stored in XenForo to lower size and do not loss quality. So, in my case it went crazy once I installed your addon. The latest attachment id uploaded to R2 is id #1157917 while the addon is optimizing...
xenforo.com
truonglv
Well-known member
What is your issue? Note: This add-on using XF abstracted filesystem.@truonglv Can you make this addon compatible with this one?
[DigitalPoint] App for Cloudflare®
What exactly does that addon not do that you are trying to do? It optimizes all images which stored in XenForo to lower size and do not loss quality. So, in my case it went crazy once I installed your addon. The latest attachment id uploaded to R2 is id #1157917 while the addon is optimizing...
Ivancas
Well-known member
Can be possible to add a function to optimize the attachments on the fly (so they are uploaded to R2 already optimized) or add support for R2 optimization?
