Gallery hosted on a remote server

baloo

Joined: 2002-09-09
Posts: 19

Posted: Mon, 2002-09-09 10:57

Hi, I've been using gallery extensively. Great sw !

Unfortunately I am website is hosted by a third party. My disk usage is creeping up to 300Mb due to the amount of photos I have online. As you can imagine this isn't cheap.

What I was hoping is that I can keep the website and Gallery code on the hosted site, but be able to keep the Albums and Photos directory tree on my server at home, using dyndns to give it a fixed address. Ideally I can specifiy a non-standard port so my 'no server' ISP wont detect it.

This will allow me to expand my Gallery without forking out too much money.

bal

Joined: 2002-08-17
Posts: 3

Posted: Mon, 2002-09-09 18:31

As far as I'm aware, this function still isn't possible... I'm hopeing it'll be implimented in Gallery 2.0 as I have a simular problem.

skaffen

Joined: 2002-09-06
Posts: 6

Posted: Tue, 2002-09-10 05:45

I'm not sure that you'd be happy with that solution: since you have a dynamic IP I assume you have DSL. Download speeds of DSL are quite fast but upload sucks, period.

Why don't you resize the original pics on your server, they need a lot of space and few people will look at more than the standard resized ones. Now you can say: "but some people want to look at them in that size!" - Well, these are exactly the pics that noone will have patience to download through your dead slow DSL... :wink:

Otherwise, what kind of money are we talking here? In Germany you can get 1 gig of webspace, 10 domains, 6000 mailboxes etc. for about 30$ per month, for 50 you get your own root server. Now for 5$ offers you can't expect more than 300 MB... :wink:

Just my 2c

Andreas

baloo

Joined: 2002-09-09
Posts: 19

Posted: Tue, 2002-09-10 10:04

Yes, running 8mbit DSL. Broadband benchmarks give me a good 2mbits upload, so I don't think speed is an issue.

Yeah, sure, I could reduce the size. I could do many things like archiving photos off. But that is not what I want. I want to be able to dump them into gallery and leave them without the need to manage it too much.

This is a personal website that is a hobby of mine. It's costing me about $30 a month now. If I could keep the photos/albums on a remote server it would cost me $4.95. Also I could add many more old photos not yet on the site without paying more.

So, back to the original request. Is there any thought or intention of providing something like this the current or future releases of Gallery ?

baloo Joined: 2002-09-09 Posts: 19	Posted: Mon, 2002-09-09 10:57
	Hi, I've been using gallery extensively. Great sw ! Unfortunately I am website is hosted by a third party. My disk usage is creeping up to 300Mb due to the amount of photos I have online. As you can imagine this isn't cheap. What I was hoping is that I can keep the website and Gallery code on the hosted site, but be able to keep the Albums and Photos directory tree on my server at home, using dyndns to give it a fixed address. Ideally I can specifiy a non-standard port so my 'no server' ISP wont detect it. This will allow me to expand my Gallery without forking out too much money.
	XUser login Username: * Password: * Create new account Request new password
bal Joined: 2002-08-17 Posts: 3	Posted: Mon, 2002-09-09 18:31
	As far as I'm aware, this function still isn't possible... I'm hopeing it'll be implimented in Gallery 2.0 as I have a simular problem.

skaffen Joined: 2002-09-06 Posts: 6	Posted: Tue, 2002-09-10 05:45
	I'm not sure that you'd be happy with that solution: since you have a dynamic IP I assume you have DSL. Download speeds of DSL are quite fast but upload sucks, period. Why don't you resize the original pics on your server, they need a lot of space and few people will look at more than the standard resized ones. Now you can say: "but some people want to look at them in that size!" - Well, these are exactly the pics that noone will have patience to download through your dead slow DSL... :wink: Otherwise, what kind of money are we talking here? In Germany you can get 1 gig of webspace, 10 domains, 6000 mailboxes etc. for about 30$ per month, for 50 you get your own root server. Now for 5$ offers you can't expect more than 300 MB... :wink: Just my 2c Andreas

baloo Joined: 2002-09-09 Posts: 19	Posted: Tue, 2002-09-10 10:04
	Yes, running 8mbit DSL. Broadband benchmarks give me a good 2mbits upload, so I don't think speed is an issue. Yeah, sure, I could reduce the size. I could do many things like archiving photos off. But that is not what I want. I want to be able to dump them into gallery and leave them without the need to manage it too much. This is a personal website that is a hobby of mine. It's costing me about $30 a month now. If I could keep the photos/albums on a remote server it would cost me $4.95. Also I could add many more old photos not yet on the site without paying more. So, back to the original request. Is there any thought or intention of providing something like this the current or future releases of Gallery ?

Gallery hosted on a remote server

XUser login