Web Design Forums

shwizle · 09-05-2008, 17:03

Is it encouraged or discouraged to use image hosting sites like imageshack to hot images for my site instead of hosting them myself? My server is somewhat slow, and I figured that 'outsourcing' the images would help the load time. But recently, some people have been complaining about the load times of the images hosted by imageshack. So what should I do?

Thanks

[EDIT: READ MY LATEST COMMENT PLEASE]

jesusfreak101 · 09-05-2008, 17:50

hosting images from another hosting site is old school and totally against the formal coding for your own site
- my opinion

emil · 10-05-2008, 02:54

Change your host.

mx · 12-05-2008, 06:22

That sounds like a terrible idea. Get a better host and host locally. The only good reasons I can see to host files remotely would be for sharing, bandwidth, or security concerns.

haku · 12-05-2008, 06:49

There are a few reasons to have your files come from an external source:

1) You can only cue two requests (or have one open and one cued, I can't remember which) PER DOMAIN when requesting new pages off the net. So if you have items coming from your own domain, and items coming from other domains, it can actually speed up your downloading process (assuming that both domains serve the files at the same rate)
2) Cookies are sent with all http requests to the domain the cookie belongs to, so if you keep any static elements on a separate domain (one that the cookie doesn't belong to), the cookies won't be sent with the request, which means less data being sent, which means faster loading time.

But even with these two points in mind, I don't think that hosting all your images on imageshack would be a great idea, nor would it be fast.

shwizle · 21-05-2008, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by emil

Change your host.

I plan on changing my host. My problem is that I don't know how to go about doing this or where to begin.... can anyone offer me some pointers on how to go about changing my host? What specs should I look for in a hosting company? How much should I be paying?

Thanks!

emil · 21-05-2008, 02:01

Figure out your budget first.
I am currently paying $200/year for a mediatemple gridserver, but that might be overkill for you. Before that I had local host with 1.5 Euro/month.

You probably want a host with decent amount of space (500 MB or more should be enough) PHP/MySQL support and a decent number of databases.

Once you have paid for the new hosting, you just need to log in to your domain administration panel and change nameservers to those provided to you by the new host and of course move all your files via ftp to the new host.

EDIT: oh and remember to check how much bandwith you have. (The more the better)

shwizle · 21-05-2008, 16:18

what is the treshold for acceptable bandwith? also, how do i find out how much i have right now?

RaelRode · 21-05-2008, 17:05

What about Amazon S3?

shwizle · 21-05-2008, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaelRode

What about Amazon S3?

looks interesting, but i really am not familiar with serverside terminology. is there any way of analyzing my site and figuring out how much $ I'd be paying? (I tried using their AWS Simple Monthly Calculator and was totally lost!

Thanks.

haku · 21-05-2008, 19:29

I think S3 is more for storage, not for actual hosting. In which case putting images on it may end up costing more than just getting a cheaper host.

shwizle · 06-06-2008, 23:40

I just switched the hosting for my website.

Can I get some feedback on its load time? Before, it was taking wayyy too long and I was scared it would drive off clients or perspective employers. I think it's better now, but would like outside opinions on how it compares to the average site.

Thanks,

Ivan

jesusfreak101 · 07-06-2008, 03:55

so far looks good
i like ur site by the way....i like the baby blue

steveb · 07-06-2008, 05:02

Shwizle -you could make your site load faster by dropping the resolution of your photos from 100 dpi to 72 dpi
On the other hand, since most people you are trying to convince already have fast broadband, why bother!? The difference would be measurable only in milliseconds.

shwizle · 07-06-2008, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveb

Shwizle -you could make your site load faster by dropping the resolution of your photos from 100 dpi to 72 dpi

...i checked and they all should be 72 dpi.

any other feedback on the site speed?

thanks

steveb · 07-06-2008, 11:21

Oh! The one on the front page seems to be 100 dpi. Irfanview told me so. Silly Irfanview!

(I have to admit, I couldn't be bothered to check the rest).

09-05-2008, 17:03	#1 (permalink)
shwizle Registered confUser Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY Posts: 355	Using ImageShack instead of hosting photos for my website? Is it encouraged or discouraged to use image hosting sites like imageshack to hot images for my site instead of hosting them myself? My server is somewhat slow, and I figured that 'outsourcing' the images would help the load time. But recently, some people have been complaining about the load times of the images hosted by imageshack. So what should I do? Thanks [EDIT: READ MY LATEST COMMENT PLEASE] __________________ Take a chance Last edited by shwizle : 21-05-2008 at 01:51.

10-05-2008, 02:54	#3 (permalink)
emil dt immigrant Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bucharest - Romania Posts: 6,493	Change your host. __________________ SECURITY Q X R

12-05-2008, 06:22	#4 (permalink)
mx fucksocks™ Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: in the boosh Posts: 1,611	That sounds like a terrible idea. Get a better host and host locally. The only good reasons I can see to host files remotely would be for sharing, bandwidth, or security concerns. __________________

12-05-2008, 06:49	#5 (permalink)
haku shiro Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 1,812	There are a few reasons to have your files come from an external source: 1) You can only cue two requests (or have one open and one cued, I can't remember which) PER DOMAIN when requesting new pages off the net. So if you have items coming from your own domain, and items coming from other domains, it can actually speed up your downloading process (assuming that both domains serve the files at the same rate) 2) Cookies are sent with all http requests to the domain the cookie belongs to, so if you keep any static elements on a separate domain (one that the cookie doesn't belong to), the cookies won't be sent with the request, which means less data being sent, which means faster loading time. But even with these two points in mind, I don't think that hosting all your images on imageshack would be a great idea, nor would it be fast. __________________ This space for rent.

21-05-2008, 02:01	#7 (permalink)
emil dt immigrant Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bucharest - Romania Posts: 6,493	Figure out your budget first. I am currently paying $200/year for a mediatemple gridserver, but that might be overkill for you. Before that I had local host with 1.5 Euro/month. You probably want a host with decent amount of space (500 MB or more should be enough) PHP/MySQL support and a decent number of databases. Once you have paid for the new hosting, you just need to log in to your domain administration panel and change nameservers to those provided to you by the new host and of course move all your files via ftp to the new host. EDIT: oh and remember to check how much bandwith you have. (The more the better) __________________ SECURITY Q X R

09-05-2008, 17:50	#2 (permalink)
jesusfreak101 ie must die Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Washington Posts: 312	hosting images from another hosting site is old school and totally against the formal coding for your own site - my opinion

21-05-2008, 16:18	#8 (permalink)
shwizle Registered confUser Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY Posts: 355	what is the treshold for acceptable bandwith? also, how do i find out how much i have right now? __________________ Take a chance

21-05-2008, 17:05	#9 (permalink)
RaelRode Designers are strange :) Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Shrewsbury, UK Posts: 1,735	What about Amazon S3? __________________ If it works, it's valid.

21-05-2008, 19:29	#11 (permalink)
haku shiro Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 1,812	I think S3 is more for storage, not for actual hosting. In which case putting images on it may end up costing more than just getting a cheaper host. __________________ This space for rent.

06-06-2008, 23:40	#12 (permalink)
shwizle Registered confUser Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY Posts: 355	I just switched the hosting for my website. Can I get some feedback on its load time? Before, it was taking wayyy too long and I was scared it would drive off clients or perspective employers. I think it's better now, but would like outside opinions on how it compares to the average site. Thanks, Ivan __________________ Take a chance

07-06-2008, 03:55	#13 (permalink)
jesusfreak101 ie must die Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Washington Posts: 312	so far looks good i like ur site by the way....i like the baby blue

07-06-2008, 05:02	#14 (permalink)
steveb 389 ppm and rising Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Järvenpää, Finland Posts: 4,147	Shwizle -you could make your site load faster by dropping the resolution of your photos from 100 dpi to 72 dpi On the other hand, since most people you are trying to convince already have fast broadband, why bother!? The difference would be measurable only in milliseconds. __________________ My free fonts www.utfi.net

07-06-2008, 11:21	#16 (permalink)
steveb 389 ppm and rising Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Järvenpää, Finland Posts: 4,147	Oh! The one on the front page seems to be 100 dpi. Irfanview told me so. Silly Irfanview! (I have to admit, I couldn't be bothered to check the rest). __________________ My free fonts www.utfi.net

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search