Server load in G2 and others scripts

achorro

Joined: 2006-01-05
Posts: 1
Posted: Thu, 2006-01-05 12:17

Hi everybody.
I have got a web running with coppermine, but I think that this script take a lot of resources of my server. My question is: How many resources take G2 to running, in comparison with others scripts?

Thanks.
 
valiant

Joined: 2003-01-04
Posts: 32509
Posted: Thu, 2006-01-05 13:02

probably g2 will use the same amount of resources as coppermine, maybe even more, it isn't a light framework.

we'll concentrate on less db queries etc. in future releases though.

gallery 1 should be pretty lightweight though.
 
Eka_Mei

Joined: 2006-01-03
Posts: 132
Posted: Thu, 2006-01-05 20:02

I used both g2 and g1 quite a lot.

I find that g1 uses a lot of hard disk access, so more ram might be required, eaccerlator won't do much to speed it up.

g2 seem to do a lot more database inquires, but that is obvious as g1 doesn't even use database. As far as speed wise. Say if you have a Pentium 4 2.4 with 1 gig of ram. Before 2000 images, G1 is faster, after around 2000 - 3000 images, g2 become faster.

g2 also speed up -a lot- after installing eaccerlator, somewhere about 300 - 400% on my count. g1 hardly speed up at all.

So it depends on what you need and what you have. If you have a hosting enviroment where you can have root access, or get someone who have root access to install eaccerlator. ( i uses 0.9.3) G2 is better in almost every way except some of the modules that are still in development. Like a comment block, e-mail notification, or voting system. But some are in the work and beta/preview version are available on most thing.

If you have a smaller gallery with less then say 1000 images, stick with g1. It will have similar speed with coppermine from my experience, but much more flexible and feature rich.