I'm wondering if thumb.php (although it internally reuses existing thumbnails) play nicely with the varnish cache layer. If you get to a point where you have to execute a PHP script you are already generating more load than necessary.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Daniel Schwen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I'm not sure there is a difference (both hit PHP and neither will >> > recreate >> > the image if it exists already), but thumb.php will result in an error >> > if >> >> Well, here is what Krinkle wrote me >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:FastCCI&diff=127317992&oldid=125445681 > > > The relevant bit is around line 300 in thumb.php (after the comment "Stream > the file if it exists already"). Also, it does return a 304 when appropriate > (of course your browser needs to send an If-Modified-Since header for that > to happen, which it probably won't do). thumb.php streams the file from a > PHP process, while Special:Redirect just sends the browser to a new location > which is served directly by the web server, so that's indeed less overhead, > especially for large files. > > Anyway, thumb.php is internals, while Special:Redirect is a public URL, so > it is always more appropriate to use the latter (or the API). > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
