How many pictures do you have in YOUR gallery?

pkx

Joined: 2003-01-27
Posts: 54

Posted: Thu, 2003-07-10 01:25

My gallery page builds pretty slow... I have over 8000 of them. Every picture I've taken with the 9 digital cameras I've owned since August 1997.

Will G2 be faster? Just curious

My picture gallery:
http://www.linquist.net/gallery/

hdotnet

Joined: 2003-01-29
Posts: 23

Posted: Thu, 2003-07-10 17:13

....be anything.

i have one server with 5k+ smaller images (640x480) on a not very shared server that works fine.

i also have gallery running on a private dedicated server, using my hi-res piks (1mb and up). about 1500 of them.

that runs slow, but so does photoshop when playing with 20 odd 1 meg images at a time. its also a crap server.

diomark

Joined: 2003-03-14
Posts: 90

Posted: Sat, 2003-07-12 05:16

5300+ images on http://mvgals.net - most highrez.. Running off a laptop over my dsl with the actual images served from a dedicated T1. (2.3gb's
-mark
3.1G /opt/mvgals/albums

bharat

Joined: 2002-05-21
Posts: 7994

Posted: Sat, 2003-07-12 07:02

G2 is way faster for large galleries. I've tested it with 100,000 photos and had reasonable (1-2 second) page loads. I haven't yet done any optimizing so I expect that performance will increase when I find time to do an optimization pass.

loxly

Joined: 2003-01-28
Posts: 126

Posted: Sat, 2003-07-26 06:32

Way cool, guess I better download a daily build and give it a test drive!!!!

I'm building a gallery now that will have 5000-10000 images. Any difference between netpbm and Image Magick for speed?

alindeman

Joined: 2002-10-06
Posts: 8194

Posted: Sat, 2003-07-26 13:41

I find ImageMagick to be noticably faster...

dochogan

Joined: 2003-12-19
Posts: 38

Posted: Mon, 2003-12-22 19:01

I had around 300 personal pics up until a couple hours ago, when I accidentally deleted the wrong album....

Now I have 10 pics

Backups, riiiiiiight ;)

Roo

Joined: 2003-07-16
Posts: 88

Posted: Tue, 2003-12-23 05:00

At the moment I have 559.

h0bbel

Joined: 2002-07-28
Posts: 13451

Posted: Tue, 2003-12-23 08:13

11 top-level albums (89 total), 2276 images

8miles

Joined: 2003-04-02
Posts: 24

Posted: Wed, 2003-12-24 07:50

at this moment ...... 32500 albums, 458000 photos .....

h0bbel

Joined: 2002-07-28
Posts: 13451

Posted: Wed, 2003-12-24 12:12

8miles, and this is running on which hardware?

alindeman

Joined: 2002-10-06
Posts: 8194

Posted: Wed, 2003-12-24 14:25

Holy !

You'll especially like G2 then..

8miles

Joined: 2003-04-02
Posts: 24

Posted: Thu, 2003-12-25 09:07

It was running with a Celeron 2.4GHz and 1GB Ram ..... Now receiving around 300,000 - 400,000 page view per day.

My site is based on heavily modified Gallery 1.3, so performance is not related to number of albums/photos I believe.

My site is http://www.fotop.net, please feel free to take a look at it.

nukestud

Joined: 2003-03-25
Posts: 114

Posted: Mon, 2003-12-29 12:58

8miles, what performance tweaks did you do to make 1.3 run so well. I only have around a few hundred albums and 25 000 pics and it runs like a dog I thought upgrading to 1.4 would help but it hasn't.

Cheers

SamBeckett

Joined: 2002-09-29
Posts: 146

Posted: Tue, 2003-12-30 18:19

one with 6500 images, one with 4500, and another with 511

nukestud

Joined: 2003-03-25
Posts: 114

Posted: Tue, 2003-12-30 18:25

SamBeckett wrote:

one with 6500 images, one with 4500, and another with 511

You mean 3 installs?

8miles

Joined: 2003-04-02
Posts: 24

Posted: Fri, 2004-01-02 15:26

nukestud wrote:

8miles, what performance tweaks did you do to make 1.3 run so well. I only have around a few hundred albums and 25 000 pics and it runs like a dog I thought upgrading to 1.4 would help but it hasn't.

Cheers

SQLized it!

Also, if you want performance, don't upgrade an to 1.4! It's even slower!

italjet

Joined: 2003-03-12
Posts: 12

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 00:34

Huh?????

Sorry but... come again? U SQLized it? How? Gimme gimme gimme!
I'm running 1.3.3 @ http://gallery.psilon.org 358 albums, 47346 photos on 60 pages atm.
It's on P4 2.4, 1G DDR, and average load around 0.8 @ 350.000 hits/day (max was 1.000.000 @ 3.4 load avg), apache2, FreeBSD - the power to serve (imagine windows running this).

Luka :oops:

8miles

Joined: 2003-04-02
Posts: 24

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 03:54

Don't you find that some operations such as "move album / photo" is damn slow? Also, calling to album.php consumer huge amount of RAM?

Is your "hits" means "pageviews", or http connect at your access_log?

alindeman

Joined: 2002-10-06
Posts: 8194

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 04:07

If you ported Gallery 1.x to SQL, you definately wasted your time. That's one of the main reasons we are writing G2, not to mention that would be a LARGE pain to write G1 to use SQL.

italjet

Joined: 2003-03-12
Posts: 12

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 12:11

8miles wrote:

Don't you find that some operations such as "move album / photo" is damn slow? Also, calling to album.php consumer huge amount of RAM?

Is your "hits" means "pageviews", or http connect at your access_log?

Yeah some operations get slow. I'm no php guru, so I think the best way to describe the problem is to say that it reads all albums that are stored in your gallery before it can move. That takes time, iostat goes wild, but it still works. We used to run on P3 450. That was really wild at 300.000 hits/day the load got up to 30.xx (but not all day long, just for 18hrs ).

How to describe hits? I'll just give you something else.

Access statistics for gallery.psilon.org on 09.01.2004
Hits:871298 Files:747858 Bytes:9855089800 Sites:1602 Pages:156696 Visits:1810
:-?

italjet

Joined: 2003-03-12
Posts: 12

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 12:19

joyoflinux wrote:

If you ported Gallery 1.x to SQL, you definately wasted your time. That's one of the main reasons we are writing G2, not to mention that would be a LARGE pain to write G1 to use SQL.

Look man. You guys made a gallery that is simply the best. I like using it and I don't bitch about some problems, not just because it's free but because I have a lot of respect for people like you. People who wrote something and are trying to make it even better, spending their free time on something that matters not just for their own ass. I could go on...

But that doesn't mean that others are wasting time trying to do something that would decrease the load. G2 is nice, but it's not even in alpha stage, so what can we do? Stop using gallery? Shut down our servers untill G2 is done? Come on...

Luka

valiant

Joined: 2003-01-04
Posts: 32509

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 14:20

my peak:
Day 19.12.2003
Number of visits 12721
Pages 98579
Hits 1483612
Bandwidth 10.16 GB

then i removed lots of pics :/

alindeman

Joined: 2002-10-06
Posts: 8194

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 14:56

italjet, I partially see what you're saying, but if you ever really take a look at how G1 works, porting it to use SQL would be such a pain for such a little reward in the future (G2). I'm not saying that they CAN'T do that -- it's their time, but I'm sure that if they really want to contribute to the Gallery project, that there are more productive jobs we can have them help with. Not to mention, if Bharat had someone who had enough time and skills to dedicate as to port G1 to SQL working on G2, he'd get it done many fold faster!

8miles

Joined: 2003-04-02
Posts: 24

Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 16:53

I just do what I need for my own project, so I don't think my time is wasted.

Actually I've try to study the source code of G2, and believe it or not, I like G1 more! I like the concept of using php serialized object for individual albums. I believe that loading dat(s) into memory is much faster than query results from several heavily joined tables contains HUGE amount of records. Of coz, SQL can help in some cases. So for some operations serialized object sicks, I use SQL. For operations serialized object is faster, I use serialized object. At least, my site is now hosting 600k+ photos without any performance problem. Most pages generated < 0.5 seconds with Zend engine.

Anyway, Gallery is a very great product, my site can't live w/o it, thanks!

diomark

Joined: 2003-03-14
Posts: 90

Posted: Tue, 2004-01-13 07:58

Update - 14826 images on a dedicated server, running (a very performance optimized version of) gallery 1.4.1.
-mark

diomark wrote:

5300+ images on http://mvgals.net - most highrez.. Running off a laptop over my dsl with the actual images served from a dedicated T1. (2.3gb's
-mark
3.1G /opt/mvgals/albums

jmullan

Joined: 2002-07-28
Posts: 974

Posted: Wed, 2004-01-14 17:08

7 top-level albums (437 total), 26889 images

kimd

Joined: 2003-05-27
Posts: 4

Posted: Thu, 2004-03-11 11:54

5 top-level albums (57 total), 1737 images ^^

LoneShadow

Joined: 2003-11-03
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu, 2004-03-11 21:30

8miles wrote:

I just do what I need for my own project, so I don't think my time is wasted.

Actually I've try to study the source code of G2, and believe it or not, I like G1 more! I like the concept of using php serialized object for individual albums. I believe that loading dat(s) into memory is much faster than query results from several heavily joined tables contains HUGE amount of records. Of coz, SQL can help in some cases. So for some operations serialized object sicks, I use SQL. For operations serialized object is faster, I use serialized object. At least, my site is now hosting 600k+ photos without any performance problem. Most pages generated < 0.5 seconds with Zend engine.

Anyway, Gallery is a very great product, my site can't live w/o it, thanks!

Its easy for one to expect that you could help with G2 with your experience. But then again, there are other factors in life too. One would have his own priorities to worry about. But hey 8Mile, I am sure lot of people will be happy with some help from you.

Just my 2 cents,
LS

diomark

Joined: 2003-03-14
Posts: 90

Posted: Thu, 2004-06-17 01:21

Bringing this thread back from the dead..

UPDATE - June 16, 2004 -
11 top-level albums (772 total), 30835 pictures

-mark

diomark

Joined: 2003-03-14
Posts: 90

Posted: Thu, 2004-06-17 01:23

ack - just read my old post and realized I had doubled in the past 6 months..
-mark

StephaneT

Joined: 2004-07-24
Posts: 26

Posted: Sat, 2004-07-24 17:50

Arround 2 000 pictures, but still growing !

demontech

Joined: 2004-07-30
Posts: 14

Posted: Sat, 2004-08-07 23:33

Well, i have 16 top-level albums (17 total), 815 images on 4 pages
and its growing year after year =)
check it out

partyvibe

Joined: 2003-09-24
Posts: 92

Posted: Sun, 2004-09-12 21:02

385 albums and 15625 images...

Nice work to owners of the galleries with links posted in this thread!

hugh
http://www.partyvibe.com/gallery/albums.php
http://www.partyvibe.com/

kit

Joined: 2003-05-21
Posts: 62

Posted: Mon, 2004-09-13 19:24

4 top-level albums (39 total), 1045 images

daoist

Joined: 2002-08-22
Posts: 38

Posted: Tue, 2004-09-28 18:35

Picdump!
184 top-level albums (1152 total), 27054 images on 19 pages

www.picdump.org/gallery

Vidman

Joined: 2002-07-20
Posts: 38

Posted: Sat, 2004-10-02 10:16

^^ jebuz!!

39 top-level albums (196 total), 3834 images

I can't wait or the next release ... user quota feature is apparently part of the package!!

sid007

Joined: 2004-10-21
Posts: 24

Posted: Thu, 2004-10-21 07:56

Still trying to get my gallery up

If any one can help than PM or write to my post in the install thread.

volksport

Joined: 2002-10-06
Posts: 239

Posted: Sun, 2004-10-31 00:09

i just hit 40k images/movies

tmothy

Joined: 2004-03-06
Posts: 53

Posted: Thu, 2004-12-02 03:40

9 top-level albums (127 total), 3162 images
900 megs total

9 top-level albums (127 total), 3162 images

www.gallerymania.tk

RacerXRed

Joined: 2003-11-09
Posts: 38

Posted: Sun, 2004-12-26 04:13

52 top-level albums (231 total), 24878 images on 9 pages

I need a faster Gallery!

zztype

Joined: 2004-12-27
Posts: 5

Posted: Mon, 2004-12-27 19:13

142 top-level albums (1086 total), 26203 images on 29 pages

http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/photogallery

G5 2.0 gHz Dual, 1gb RAM

someday23

Joined: 2005-01-29
Posts: 8

Posted: Sun, 2005-01-30 01:35

8miles wrote:

at this moment ...... 32500 albums, 458000 photos .....

Wow! What sort of photos?

diomark

Joined: 2003-03-14
Posts: 90

Posted: Sun, 2005-01-30 04:52

11 top-level albums (1150 total), 59529 pictures
(and fighting performance every step of the way; argh; my 1.3.1 doesn't look anything like gallery anymore..)
-m

itsnotlevel

Joined: 2005-09-28
Posts: 25

Posted: Fri, 2006-12-01 18:01

I had a request from a customer to get.... top level albums and # of images, that shows up in the breadcrumb bar of g1....to show up possibly on the top area of g2 just so people can see how many and whats there. Anyone gettin what im talkin about? If so, how would I put that up there?

Paul Wilson
:::::Stay Gold:::::

cush

Joined: 2006-09-19
Posts: 15

Posted: Wed, 2007-08-01 20:33

having lots of thousands of pictures on a gallery first of all will sum up to a huge amount of disk space if you don't simply store lower quality pics. guys like 8miles have to consume huge amounts of bandwith.

--
serving bits since ever!

pkx Joined: 2003-01-27 Posts: 54	Posted: Thu, 2003-07-10 01:25
	My gallery page builds pretty slow... I have over 8000 of them. Every picture I've taken with the 9 digital cameras I've owned since August 1997. Will G2 be faster? Just curious My picture gallery: http://www.linquist.net/gallery/
	XUser login Username: * Password: * Create new account Request new password
hdotnet Joined: 2003-01-29 Posts: 23	Posted: Thu, 2003-07-10 17:13
	....be anything. i have one server with 5k+ smaller images (640x480) on a not very shared server that works fine. i also have gallery running on a private dedicated server, using my hi-res piks (1mb and up). about 1500 of them. that runs slow, but so does photoshop when playing with 20 odd 1 meg images at a time. its also a crap server.

diomark Joined: 2003-03-14 Posts: 90	Posted: Sat, 2003-07-12 05:16
	5300+ images on http://mvgals.net - most highrez.. Running off a laptop over my dsl with the actual images served from a dedicated T1. (2.3gb's -mark 3.1G /opt/mvgals/albums

bharat Joined: 2002-05-21 Posts: 7994	Posted: Sat, 2003-07-12 07:02
	G2 is way faster for large galleries. I've tested it with 100,000 photos and had reasonable (1-2 second) page loads. I haven't yet done any optimizing so I expect that performance will increase when I find time to do an optimization pass.

loxly Joined: 2003-01-28 Posts: 126	Posted: Sat, 2003-07-26 06:32
	Way cool, guess I better download a daily build and give it a test drive!!!! I'm building a gallery now that will have 5000-10000 images. Any difference between netpbm and Image Magick for speed?

alindeman Joined: 2002-10-06 Posts: 8194	Posted: Sat, 2003-07-26 13:41
	I find ImageMagick to be noticably faster...

dochogan Joined: 2003-12-19 Posts: 38	Posted: Mon, 2003-12-22 19:01
	I had around 300 personal pics up until a couple hours ago, when I accidentally deleted the wrong album.... Now I have 10 pics Backups, riiiiiiight ;)

Roo Joined: 2003-07-16 Posts: 88	Posted: Tue, 2003-12-23 05:00
	At the moment I have 559.

h0bbel Joined: 2002-07-28 Posts: 13451	Posted: Tue, 2003-12-23 08:13
	11 top-level albums (89 total), 2276 images

8miles Joined: 2003-04-02 Posts: 24	Posted: Wed, 2003-12-24 07:50
	at this moment ...... 32500 albums, 458000 photos .....

h0bbel Joined: 2002-07-28 Posts: 13451	Posted: Wed, 2003-12-24 12:12
	8miles, and this is running on which hardware?

alindeman Joined: 2002-10-06 Posts: 8194	Posted: Wed, 2003-12-24 14:25
	Holy ! You'll especially like G2 then..

8miles Joined: 2003-04-02 Posts: 24	Posted: Thu, 2003-12-25 09:07
	It was running with a Celeron 2.4GHz and 1GB Ram ..... Now receiving around 300,000 - 400,000 page view per day. My site is based on heavily modified Gallery 1.3, so performance is not related to number of albums/photos I believe. My site is http://www.fotop.net, please feel free to take a look at it.

nukestud Joined: 2003-03-25 Posts: 114	Posted: Mon, 2003-12-29 12:58
	8miles, what performance tweaks did you do to make 1.3 run so well. I only have around a few hundred albums and 25 000 pics and it runs like a dog I thought upgrading to 1.4 would help but it hasn't. Cheers

SamBeckett Joined: 2002-09-29 Posts: 146	Posted: Tue, 2003-12-30 18:19
	one with 6500 images, one with 4500, and another with 511

nukestud Joined: 2003-03-25 Posts: 114	Posted: Tue, 2003-12-30 18:25
	SamBeckett wrote: one with 6500 images, one with 4500, and another with 511 You mean 3 installs?

8miles Joined: 2003-04-02 Posts: 24	Posted: Fri, 2004-01-02 15:26
	nukestud wrote: 8miles, what performance tweaks did you do to make 1.3 run so well. I only have around a few hundred albums and 25 000 pics and it runs like a dog I thought upgrading to 1.4 would help but it hasn't. Cheers SQLized it! Also, if you want performance, don't upgrade an to 1.4! It's even slower!

italjet Joined: 2003-03-12 Posts: 12	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 00:34
	Huh????? Sorry but... come again? U SQLized it? How? Gimme gimme gimme! I'm running 1.3.3 @ http://gallery.psilon.org 358 albums, 47346 photos on 60 pages atm. It's on P4 2.4, 1G DDR, and average load around 0.8 @ 350.000 hits/day (max was 1.000.000 @ 3.4 load avg), apache2, FreeBSD - the power to serve (imagine windows running this). Luka :oops:

8miles Joined: 2003-04-02 Posts: 24	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 03:54
	Don't you find that some operations such as "move album / photo" is damn slow? Also, calling to album.php consumer huge amount of RAM? Is your "hits" means "pageviews", or http connect at your access_log?

alindeman Joined: 2002-10-06 Posts: 8194	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 04:07
	If you ported Gallery 1.x to SQL, you definately wasted your time. That's one of the main reasons we are writing G2, not to mention that would be a LARGE pain to write G1 to use SQL.

italjet Joined: 2003-03-12 Posts: 12	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 12:11
	8miles wrote: Don't you find that some operations such as "move album / photo" is damn slow? Also, calling to album.php consumer huge amount of RAM? Is your "hits" means "pageviews", or http connect at your access_log? Yeah some operations get slow. I'm no php guru, so I think the best way to describe the problem is to say that it reads all albums that are stored in your gallery before it can move. That takes time, iostat goes wild, but it still works. We used to run on P3 450. That was really wild at 300.000 hits/day the load got up to 30.xx (but not all day long, just for 18hrs ). How to describe hits? I'll just give you something else. Access statistics for gallery.psilon.org on 09.01.2004 Hits:871298 Files:747858 Bytes:9855089800 Sites:1602 Pages:156696 Visits:1810 :-?

italjet Joined: 2003-03-12 Posts: 12	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 12:19
	joyoflinux wrote: If you ported Gallery 1.x to SQL, you definately wasted your time. That's one of the main reasons we are writing G2, not to mention that would be a LARGE pain to write G1 to use SQL. Look man. You guys made a gallery that is simply the best. I like using it and I don't bitch about some problems, not just because it's free but because I have a lot of respect for people like you. People who wrote something and are trying to make it even better, spending their free time on something that matters not just for their own ass. I could go on... But that doesn't mean that others are wasting time trying to do something that would decrease the load. G2 is nice, but it's not even in alpha stage, so what can we do? Stop using gallery? Shut down our servers untill G2 is done? Come on... Luka

valiant Joined: 2003-01-04 Posts: 32509	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 14:20
	my peak: Day 19.12.2003 Number of visits 12721 Pages 98579 Hits 1483612 Bandwidth 10.16 GB then i removed lots of pics :/

alindeman Joined: 2002-10-06 Posts: 8194	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 14:56
	italjet, I partially see what you're saying, but if you ever really take a look at how G1 works, porting it to use SQL would be such a pain for such a little reward in the future (G2). I'm not saying that they CAN'T do that -- it's their time, but I'm sure that if they really want to contribute to the Gallery project, that there are more productive jobs we can have them help with. Not to mention, if Bharat had someone who had enough time and skills to dedicate as to port G1 to SQL working on G2, he'd get it done many fold faster!

8miles Joined: 2003-04-02 Posts: 24	Posted: Sat, 2004-01-10 16:53
	I just do what I need for my own project, so I don't think my time is wasted. Actually I've try to study the source code of G2, and believe it or not, I like G1 more! I like the concept of using php serialized object for individual albums. I believe that loading dat(s) into memory is much faster than query results from several heavily joined tables contains HUGE amount of records. Of coz, SQL can help in some cases. So for some operations serialized object sicks, I use SQL. For operations serialized object is faster, I use serialized object. At least, my site is now hosting 600k+ photos without any performance problem. Most pages generated < 0.5 seconds with Zend engine. Anyway, Gallery is a very great product, my site can't live w/o it, thanks!

diomark Joined: 2003-03-14 Posts: 90	Posted: Tue, 2004-01-13 07:58
	Update - 14826 images on a dedicated server, running (a very performance optimized version of) gallery 1.4.1. -mark diomark wrote: 5300+ images on http://mvgals.net - most highrez.. Running off a laptop over my dsl with the actual images served from a dedicated T1. (2.3gb's -mark 3.1G /opt/mvgals/albums

jmullan Joined: 2002-07-28 Posts: 974	Posted: Wed, 2004-01-14 17:08
	7 top-level albums (437 total), 26889 images

kimd Joined: 2003-05-27 Posts: 4	Posted: Thu, 2004-03-11 11:54
	5 top-level albums (57 total), 1737 images ^^

LoneShadow Joined: 2003-11-03 Posts: 18	Posted: Thu, 2004-03-11 21:30
	8miles wrote: I just do what I need for my own project, so I don't think my time is wasted. Actually I've try to study the source code of G2, and believe it or not, I like G1 more! I like the concept of using php serialized object for individual albums. I believe that loading dat(s) into memory is much faster than query results from several heavily joined tables contains HUGE amount of records. Of coz, SQL can help in some cases. So for some operations serialized object sicks, I use SQL. For operations serialized object is faster, I use serialized object. At least, my site is now hosting 600k+ photos without any performance problem. Most pages generated < 0.5 seconds with Zend engine. Anyway, Gallery is a very great product, my site can't live w/o it, thanks! Its easy for one to expect that you could help with G2 with your experience. But then again, there are other factors in life too. One would have his own priorities to worry about. But hey 8Mile, I am sure lot of people will be happy with some help from you. Just my 2 cents, LS

diomark Joined: 2003-03-14 Posts: 90	Posted: Thu, 2004-06-17 01:21
	Bringing this thread back from the dead.. UPDATE - June 16, 2004 - 11 top-level albums (772 total), 30835 pictures -mark

diomark Joined: 2003-03-14 Posts: 90	Posted: Thu, 2004-06-17 01:23
	ack - just read my old post and realized I had doubled in the past 6 months.. -mark

StephaneT Joined: 2004-07-24 Posts: 26	Posted: Sat, 2004-07-24 17:50
	Arround 2 000 pictures, but still growing !

demontech Joined: 2004-07-30 Posts: 14	Posted: Sat, 2004-08-07 23:33
	Well, i have 16 top-level albums (17 total), 815 images on 4 pages and its growing year after year =) check it out

partyvibe Joined: 2003-09-24 Posts: 92	Posted: Sun, 2004-09-12 21:02
	385 albums and 15625 images... Nice work to owners of the galleries with links posted in this thread! hugh http://www.partyvibe.com/gallery/albums.php http://www.partyvibe.com/

kit Joined: 2003-05-21 Posts: 62	Posted: Mon, 2004-09-13 19:24
	4 top-level albums (39 total), 1045 images

daoist Joined: 2002-08-22 Posts: 38	Posted: Tue, 2004-09-28 18:35
	Picdump! 184 top-level albums (1152 total), 27054 images on 19 pages www.picdump.org/gallery

Vidman Joined: 2002-07-20 Posts: 38	Posted: Sat, 2004-10-02 10:16
	^^ jebuz!! 39 top-level albums (196 total), 3834 images I can't wait or the next release ... user quota feature is apparently part of the package!!

sid007 Joined: 2004-10-21 Posts: 24	Posted: Thu, 2004-10-21 07:56
	Still trying to get my gallery up If any one can help than PM or write to my post in the install thread.

volksport Joined: 2002-10-06 Posts: 239	Posted: Sun, 2004-10-31 00:09
	i just hit 40k images/movies

tmothy Joined: 2004-03-06 Posts: 53	Posted: Thu, 2004-12-02 03:40
	9 top-level albums (127 total), 3162 images 900 megs total 9 top-level albums (127 total), 3162 images www.gallerymania.tk

RacerXRed Joined: 2003-11-09 Posts: 38	Posted: Sun, 2004-12-26 04:13
	52 top-level albums (231 total), 24878 images on 9 pages I need a faster Gallery!

zztype Joined: 2004-12-27 Posts: 5	Posted: Mon, 2004-12-27 19:13
	142 top-level albums (1086 total), 26203 images on 29 pages http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/photogallery G5 2.0 gHz Dual, 1gb RAM

someday23 Joined: 2005-01-29 Posts: 8	Posted: Sun, 2005-01-30 01:35
	8miles wrote: at this moment ...... 32500 albums, 458000 photos ..... Wow! What sort of photos?

diomark Joined: 2003-03-14 Posts: 90	Posted: Sun, 2005-01-30 04:52
	11 top-level albums (1150 total), 59529 pictures (and fighting performance every step of the way; argh; my 1.3.1 doesn't look anything like gallery anymore..) -m

itsnotlevel Joined: 2005-09-28 Posts: 25	Posted: Fri, 2006-12-01 18:01
	I had a request from a customer to get.... top level albums and # of images, that shows up in the breadcrumb bar of g1....to show up possibly on the top area of g2 just so people can see how many and whats there. Anyone gettin what im talkin about? If so, how would I put that up there? Paul Wilson :::::Stay Gold:::::

cush Joined: 2006-09-19 Posts: 15	Posted: Wed, 2007-08-01 20:33
	having lots of thousands of pictures on a gallery first of all will sum up to a huge amount of disk space if you don't simply store lower quality pics. guys like 8miles have to consume huge amounts of bandwith. -- serving bits since ever!

How many pictures do you have in YOUR gallery?

XUser login