Resize images asynchronously #1
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gerdint
force-pushed
the
srcset-async
branch
from
02da369 to
16a84d0
Compare
gerdint
force-pushed
the
srcset-async
branch
from
16a84d0 to
22985b4
Compare
Defaults to 1.5*<number-of-cores> concurrent processes
gerdint
force-pushed
the
srcset-async
branch
from
22985b4 to
b6c8f11
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Yields a 2x speed-up on my dual-core i5 machine.
However, as it stands each size of an image to be resized yields a new subprocess potentially spawning many subprocesses concurrently if the site contains a lot of images (such as my own). This increases memory usage and may therefore cause disk swapping if memory is limited. Does not seem to be a big issue on my 8GB SSD-equipped machine but I understand performance characteristics may be different on other machines.
It may perhaps be preferable to a have a job server making sure that no more than N processes are spawned concurrently. A useful but potentially conservative value for N may be the number of processor cores.
OR perhaps I'm over-engineering here. WDYT?