I have not had a chance to play with G3, so I don’t know how well this method would work with it. Of course it would have to be modified, but I don’t know in what way. It is also possible that G3 changed things in such a way that a S3 plugin would be easier to write.

I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful!

I was wondering if you’ve had a chance to try this solution with the Gallery3 beta.

I’ve been looking for a way to host my gallery2 files on S3 for a long time but I am also keen to up upgrade to Gallery3 especially as it appears to be reaching a Beta4 or RC1 stage.

Is your S3 solution compatible with Gallery3?

Thanks.

Of course, it all depends greatly on the terrain and foliage. In the treeless desert, which is very common around San Diego, it works great, of course. It doesn’t handle fast changes in altitude very well, however. There can be a large time lag in accurate altitude on fast descents.

With respect to your actual question, I don’t see anomalous altitude changes very often, so even if the absolute value of altitude is off (which is easily judged when I ride along the coast), d(altitude) seems pretty good for even small rises in the road.

Isn’t the Golden Bear quarter mile track surrounded by trees? That could be a contributing factor.

it seems to me that your solution works only when the original webserver has enough disk space for all your media files. When that this the case, and one is willing to keep the S3/Cloudfront copies up to date manually (or perhaps with a rsync script), your method will work.

However, if the situation is like mine, where the webserver doesn’t have enough disk space for all your files, I don’t think it will work.

That being said, I very much appreciate the link and the comment. Thanks!

The modifications to make on the web server are minimal:
- only modify 2 lines in Gallery2’s .htaccess

But there are some drawbacks and it’s only good for gallery which are not updated by several people.

Have a look here:

http://www.flughafen-kurier.ch/blog/2009/07/24/how-to-use-s3-and-cloudfront-for-gallery2/

Comments and improvements are welcome.

“So wait, according to you, a vehicle with any suspension work is a brodozer?…”

In Gallery2, the thumbnails are functionally treated the same as all the other re-sized copies of the image. So yes, they are on S3.

If you’re moving a whole directory to S3, and the directory structure is more straightforward than the image referencing scheme for Gallery2, you may not even need a cgi script to redirect requests. You may be able to use only .htaccess URL rewrites.

I am not familiar with MediaWIki, so I don’t know how much guidance I can give there. I wish you luck!

I think your work is great. We do use access control for images; this is the right way for us to use S3.

I’m rewriting your solution it to work with MediaWiki (MW). I’m also looking to see what other people already may have done. Your code and instructions are great.

Like Gallery2, MW creates thumbnails for every image. We have this configured to be done when the image is originally stored. People can specify the size of the thumbnails in their image tags. A thumbnail in that sense is just a page-specific scaling of the image and can get pretty large. Thumbnails are rebuilt if none is available for a page when it’s rendered.

By using your model, are Gallery’s thumbnails also being stored on s3? If not, did you mess around with them to see if it made a difference?

I’m not so cheap that I’m trying to move the diskspace for the thumbnails to s3 because of cost. I’m more interested in getting as much storage out of the local box so that I can also migrate my php apps to ec2.

I’m experimenting with this on a local set of boxes today to see how it works. In MW, the storage of thumbnails is done in the same base directory as the fat image files. I want to see if I can just remote the whole directory. We have a few dozen separate MW instances to relocate. It will be a lot cleaner to have the same model with s3 in the mix.

Thanks again for your work and thanks, in advance, for any comments.

well mentioning it to some people you know doesn’t say so much, heck most people I know have no idea how slides are different to negatives, “do you need a special camera”. I feel it just goes to show that most people don’t put much effort into learning much about anything.

The complete lack of sites out there showing much about the effects of lens movement makes me want to put something together.

Presently (missing my TS-E lenses) I’m trying to get something put together to allow 35mm lenses to be adapted to micro 4/3rds cameras to give tilt (and some shift might be nice too).

read my blog here:
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/05/lens-tilt-on-panasonic-g1.html

The fact that images are sent through amazon’s server (since your server just redirects the user to the temporary URL) makes things much faster. If your server is getting hammered, you won’t be serving lengthy requests (images might be big, after all).

Currently my implementation is very hacking (ashamed to show it, strange variables everywhere and strange files lying around), but the concept seems to work really well.

I really wish I could make this into a gallery2 module, but it seems that one of the functions I’d need to modify is not modifiable through the module system, which is a problem. (Doesn’t seem Gallery.class can be changed in custom modules).

If anyone has ideas, please tell me.

Mike, if you are interested in what I’m doing, feel free to contact me through email (genia4@gmail.com). I’m also available ton google talk (same address). I can explain in more detail what I did (and provide code snippets).

That sounds really interesting. Right now, I’m using s3, but mounted via S3FS (my derivatives are local, but the full sizes are on s3), since I want the image firewall. If there was some way to access amazon directly while preserving some security, that would be great (my security needs are more along the lines of not leaking URLs through referer headers and less for actual “security”, so a temporary URL that expired after a few minutes would be plenty).

Looking forward…

As soon as I have something completely working, I’ll publish the code and give a URL to a demo site.

This method should lighten the load on the server considerably, since the rewrite.py file and all the associated hackery needs not be called anymore – requests go straight to amazon’s servers.

If anyone else is interested in this solution, please tell me

I’m open to any ideas to make this thing better, of course. Good luck!