Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What LAMP-Based Gallery Software Would You Use?

Cliff posted more than 7 years ago | from the show-off-your-photography-skills dept.

Graphics 62

Zanguinar asks: "I've been a Gallery user for years now. I have a ton of photos, organized by albums, mainly just for use by my family and close friends. However, some of my friends have begun using Flickr. I can't say I blame them, since it's got a great design, and I love the tagging concept. However, I'm not eager to store my photos on somebody else's server, and don't want to pay for the privilege, especially since I already run my own web server. The problem is, I can't find any Flickr-like software to run on my home LAMP setup. All I want is to be able to tag my photos like Flickr and be able to display them by tag, tag intersection, date, and other such fields. Is there an OSS that is doing this?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

danbooru (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19096677)

danbooru [donmai.us] it's ruby on rails, and kind of a pain to setup, but it's quite nice once it's running.

Re:danbooru (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19099903)

danbooru it's ruby on rails, and kind of a pain to setup, but it's quite nice once it's running.


Well there Freddy Fucktard, I don't see an "r" in LAMP.. do you?

Re:danbooru (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19100527)

Don't be hatin just cause I got FP and you didn't.

JuxtaPhoto (3, Informative)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096685)

http://jeffreyharrell.com/projects/juxtaphoto/ [jeffreyharrell.com]

JuxtaPhoto

JuxtaPhoto is an easy PHP photo album that lets you share and organize images on your website. The features include tagged "smart albums", EXIF information, batch uploads, automatic photo sizing, chronological sorting of photos, slideshows, and easy to modify templates.

Demo:
http://photos.jeffreyharrell.com/ [jeffreyharrell.com]

Re:JuxtaPhoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19100059)

was looking at the demo page. that is some nice software. thanks for sharing it. if/when i roll lamp again, i'll try it out.

Re: JuxtaPhoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19105007)

I like it, but the demo, ugh, what is the deal with dark text on a black background? I hope that isn't the default, it would make me wonder what other mistakes were made....

Ugh, he loooves his black background, but it does seem to be fairly nice otherwise. I'll give it a try.

Try using Drupal with Image module (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19096727)

If you install Drupal with Image module then you will have a nice platform to post/import your photos.

There is a built in tagging feature that works great.

Have fun!

Re:Try using Drupal with Image module (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19126815)

Blah!

If I could put a spitting sound into words, this recommendation would certainly require such text.

Why in the world would you install a full CMS package for just photo sharing? Gawd people, think!

Gallery (1, Troll)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096751)

I use Gallery v2 for my family, it is really good for home use on a small server or whatever. It has resizing (via ImageMagick) and a really nice Java based slideshow

See http://gallery.menalto.com/ [menalto.com]

For Business use I would perhaps use something else as it looks far too much fun!

Re:Gallery (0, Redundant)

Library Spoff (582122) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096805)

"I've been a Gallery user for years now."
Was there part of that you didn't understand?

Re:Gallery (0)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097071)

Nothing, Gallery *version 2* can do that.

Gallery 2. (5, Informative)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096813)

G2 has a keywords module that sounds a lot like what you want to do. If not, there's the tags module [menalto.com] . If you want Gallery to look more like Flickr, just theme it [thelineberrys.com] .

Re:Gallery 2. (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096837)

Maybe I should clarify that I did indeed see that he's been a Gallery user for years. Maybe he just haven't kept up with developments, I dunno.

Re:Gallery 2. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098991)

Maybe I should clarify that I did indeed see that he's been a Gallery user for years. Maybe he just haven't kept up with developments, I dunno.

It's OK, most of us were thinking the same thing.

Re:Gallery 2. (1)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19100199)

Maybe I should clarify that I did indeed see that he's been a Gallery user for years. Maybe he just haven't kept up with developments, I dunno.

It's OK, most of us were thinking the same thing.
Perhaps you were, but I am also a G2 user looking to switch to something else. I've already started using flickr, but I would prefer better software for my site. Gallery is just too slow for me, and I guess I've just become frustrated with it. I can't point to any specific feature that I like or dislike, but I think something web 2.0ish and an uploading client would help.

Re:Gallery 2. (2, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19100363)

Gallery is just too slow for me,

Which part is slow? Poke around at pictures.$mylastname.us and see if that feels slow to you. I've got it on an old server without any performance optimizations and it serves me pictures as fast as my browser can render them. I would expect Flikr's servers to be highly optimized and therefore marginally faster, but the "Gallery is slow" thing, which I've read a few times on this thread, I'm not understanding.

Do you have it on a slow shared host maybe?

Re:Gallery 2. (1)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19100491)

It still feels relatively slow to me. For example, opening an album that has three sub-albums (three thumbnails) took 3.2 seconds, and the pictures loaded sequentially. After 3.2 seconds on Flickr, about 10 thumbnails had loaded. Not incredibly poky, but it could be because I'm now spoiled after having fiber for a few years. I know this could be caused by Flickr having servers geographically closer to me with better connections, but I've noticed it on nearly every g2 site I've been on. It just feels slower than the rest.

I did move my gallery to a shared host, although I was considering hosting it myself. Speaking of which, that's another turnoff for me. I had a rather difficult time moving between hosts and lost all of my comments and additional info the last time I tried moving it.

Re:Gallery 2. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19101403)

It still feels relatively slow to me. For example, opening an album that has three sub-albums (three thumbnails) took 3.2 seconds, and the pictures loaded sequentially. After 3.2 seconds on Flickr, about 10 thumbnails had loaded. Not incredibly poky, but it could be because I'm now spoiled after having fiber for a few years. I know this could be caused by Flickr having servers geographically closer to me with better connections, but I've noticed it on nearly every g2 site I've been on. It just feels slower than the rest.

So I see at least three things here: 1) The Flickr CDN gets close to you, as you mention; 2) Flickr has a better Internet connections (I'm on a shared 10Mbit connection, several hops from a big peering point; 3) Flickr cares about performance - mine is a 4 year old server with not enough RAM and absolutely no performance tuning into it. 10 vs. 3.2 sounds like the kind of number that could be entirely attributable to the above factors, without even looking at the software. Throw in the general slowness of PHP and you've got a winner. :)

If I cared about performance, I'd at least setup Zend, tune it, then throw a squid in front of it (that's actually a good way to speed up any pig of an app, not just Gallery2 - not much beats hits on a squid cache). I'd probably de-install a bunch of modules I don't really use and put some more RAM in the machine. The disks are already RAID-1, but they're old (low-arial-density) SCSI drives with poor seeks, small cache, and slow reads by today's standards.

I did move my gallery to a shared host, although I was considering hosting it myself. Speaking of which, that's another turnoff for me. I had a rather difficult time moving between hosts and lost all of my comments and additional info the last time I tried moving it.

If you found a shared host which isn't tarred down with a constant high system load, let us know. :) Boy, if you can host it yourself, by all means - the headaches are much smaller. I just moved my Gallery from one machine to another a couple weeks ago and didn't have any trouble. Just an rsync - I even replaced the PostgreSQL database files in-place (without a dump/restore as is recommended) and it worked just fine. I'm about to move it from my manual install to Fedora's package-managed install, and that looks like moving my config.php and changing the DocumentRoot in the vhost.

My guess is that if you're on a shared host, any app is going to be slow. I'd much rather be running something that runs in mod_perl than Gallery2, but G2 has the features I wanted and I didn't find another one that did. mod_perl apps are also hard to find shared hosting for.

Just to be clear, I'd never expect Gallery2 to be as fast as Flickr - I'm just offering suggestions that might help make it more usable. And seriously - if Flickr has all the features you'd want - by golly, running your own seems silly.

Re:Gallery 2. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19101455)

Oh, I forgot to mention, the sequential loading of the pictures is probably because I have Apache set to a very small number of children. That was from my old machine which had less ram - I really ought to up that.

blorp! (2, Informative)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096867)

http://www.1014.org/code/blorpscript/ [1014.org]

One of Justin Frankel's (from Winamp) works. Not as structured as Flikr, but is also more flexible.

Singapore? Coppermine? (2, Informative)

Sosarian (39969) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096927)

Singapore or Coppermine?

http://www.sgal.org/ [sgal.org]

http://coppermine-gallery.net/ [coppermine-gallery.net]

Re:Singapore? Coppermine? (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19099981)

Nah, not Singapore. He wants tagging, and Singapore has absolutely no search functionality. Except for the ugly hack I wrote for searching that nobody else has been able to get working, that I know of.

(I love Singapore and use it for my own site - but it ain't what the original post is looking for.)

I use Gallery (1)

Stone316 (629009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19096947)

and it is nice software but I find that after you get thousands of images it gets rather difficult to manage. I would love to have an application that lets me tag pictures on my home computer like in an explorer window and keep it in sync with the server.

I think that would be so much easier to manage. Its a project on my to do list and really all you need to do is write a client to talk to a gallery server.

Like you, I have my own server and i'd rather host it... Especially since I already have 12GB of images uploaded.

Re:I use Gallery (2, Informative)

Falkkin (97268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098895)

In Linux, digikam has the capability to do this -- there's an "Sync Gallery" plugin that claims to keep your library in sync with a Gallery install, presumably including the tags and other metadata. However, I've not tried it personally (though I have used digikam extensively to do other things).

Re:I use Gallery (1)

commanderfoxtrot (115784) | more than 7 years ago | (#19102983)

I've used Flickr, Gallery and Zoph. I contributed code to Zoph and had 10GB of pics in there.

I've now moved to Phanfare, mostly because it's a sane way to store videos as well as a very good way to store photos.

It's a relief to be able to not worry about backing up 10GB+ of photos.

I've officially aged out of the nerd category. (1)

attemptedgoalie (634133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097015)

I read the original post, and the replies.

Other than the word "the", I don't think I have any idea what anybody is talking about. :-)

Roll your own (2, Informative)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097017)

More like WAPP and not exactly LAMP, but I wrote my own gallery in Perl. Runs on Win2003, Apache, PostgreSQL, and Perl 5.8.8, but should work fine on BSD or, if you must, Linux.

The first version just made the thumbnails with ImageMagick for images in specified folders and spewed out a table with the thumbnails and links. It didn't even use the database. Now you add an album through an admin page and at this point the script adds the album and individual images to the DB, then it makes the thumbnails with PerlMagick. The user accessible part just fetches the rows and prints them out in individual divs, which are then nicely arranged in CSS. Ta-da!

The whole thing is less than 200 lines including a good deal of comments (or maybe just commented-out code). Had fun writing it, would do it again. A+++.

Re:Roll your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19097565)

...if you must, Linux.
just curious... what does this mean?

Re:Roll your own (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098355)

It means not everyone is party to the slobberfest.

Re:Roll your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19099613)

fuck off troll

Zenphoto (4, Interesting)

trisweb (690296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097053)

Shameless plug... I wrote it. :-) Simple and sweet, directory-based, fast and secure.

http://www.zenphoto.org/ [zenphoto.org]

Re:Zenphoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19097649)

Perhaps you'll make some updates, but it would be great to see an optional, alternative display method using some modern effects in AJAX like most leading galleries currently do. That and removed the "Web 2.0" award sticker because you're not mentioned as an award recipient on the linked page. Otherwise, I'd say you've got a decent little gallery tool for folks wanting late-90s simplicity.

Removing Web 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19097967)

That and removed the "Web 2.0" award sticker because you're not mentioned as an award recipient on the linked page.

I second the removal of the Web 2.0 sticker, but not for the reason that you give. Instead, it's because nobody with half a brain cell would want to be associated with the bloated, non-portable crap and triumph of form over function that is Web 2.0.

Otherwise, I'd say you've got a decent little gallery tool for folks wanting late-90s simplicity.

Yes indeed. In other words, for anyone who isn't a mindless sheep and a fashion victim.

Re:Removing Web 2.0 (1)

trisweb (690296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098911)

Thanks for the comments. It's just marketing, getting people in... once they download hopefully they'll be more impressed by the utility and less brainwashed by the web 2.0.

And the award is legit, but for last year.

Re:Zenphoto (2, Insightful)

Tadu (141809) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098735)

Well, it doesn't even create navigational links, and the viagra comment spam is rather telling about the "secure" front...

Re:Zenphoto (2, Informative)

Eil (82413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19101963)

Nice-looking project, but did you notice your demo galleries are full of comment spam?

Re:Zenphoto (1)

adrenalinerush (518023) | more than 7 years ago | (#19117965)

I'll second this. I've been using Zenphoto for a few months now, and I'm pretty happy with it. It's much more... minimalist than other web galleries. Some may view this as a weakness, but I like it. Other galleries can be too much of an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink thing. Dammit, I just want to display some pictures!

Re:Zenphoto (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19125047)

Nice, but Postgres support for the database would be nicer...

There's always Photo Organizer.. (1)

Pizza (87623) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097339)

http://po.shaftnet.org/ [shaftnet.org]

It's primary purpose is to be a photographer's main image repository rather than "post a bunch of images online and blog about it" As such, it lacks social networking features (beyond ratings) but it scales up to ginormous repository sizes. My personal site has over 30K images (in over 100GB).

It supports multiple image versions, extensive tagging, bulk updates, and has fancy search, import, and export features. It's built on top of PostgreSQL, making extensive use of stored procedures and triggers, not to mention the usual ACID features.

This is a shameless self-plug though -- I stumbled across PO a couple of years ago and ended up contributing so much back that the original author handed the reigns to me. I have a huge laundry list of features to add, mostly driven by real-world needs.

Re:There's always Photo Organizer.. (1)

Tadu (141809) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098875)

http://po.shaftnet.org/ [shaftnet.org]
It's primary purpose is to be a photographer's main image repository rather than "post a bunch of images online and blog about it" As such, it lacks social networking features (beyond ratings) but it scales up to ginormous repository sizes. My personal site has over 30K images (in over 100GB).
I wish there would be some program that would let me edit my gallery offline and only upload static HTML pages... (other than my crappy sed based script I did)

Re:There's always Photo Organizer.. (1)

Pizza (87623) | more than 7 years ago | (#19112473)

I was using BINS (http://bins.sautret.org/) for a while -- I even sent in several patches to speed it up -- but in the end a static set of pages simply got too large to manage manually. And that was only 4000 or so images. :)

That said, BINS is nice for small, fire-and-forget static galleries. IT's just not a management solution.

Scry - Requiring just the P. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19097527)

http://scry.org/ [scry.org]

A simple PHP album, just drop the pictures into a folder, and it does the rest (thumbnailing, caching, etc). All you need is PHP with GD, no database required.

photolibrary (1)

ed_g2s (598342) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097783)

photolibrary [sourceforge.net] is an interesting alternative...

Scry (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097847)

This suggestion does not meet the needs for the question submitter, but I'd like to clue in other slashdot readers who might be reading this.

Scry [scry.org] is a great, simple, easy-to-install PHP image gallery. Just download it, unpack it, and upload your photos, organized in folders, to the 'photos' directory. The first time you view the site, Scry will create thumbnails and index images.

It requires write permissions on the server ( to create the thumbnails and index images) and it relies on GD support being compiled in to PHP. It does not have the tagging capabilities that the questioner is looking for, so it's not a solution in that sense. It doesn't require MySQL or any other database. So if you want to put up a photo gallery only by manipulating the file system, Scry is great.

Try LinPHA... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098391)

LinPHA [sourceforge.net] does a fair bit of what you are looking for, and is fairly easy to set up. It doesn't have tagging, but it's categories are a functional equivalent. I use it for my photos on my own server.

Re:Try LinPHA... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098431)

Before some Grammar Nazi criticizes me for the misplaced apostrophe: I see it, acknowledge its presence, and hereby state that it was not intentional.

Re:Try LinPHA... (2, Funny)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19100219)

Before some Grammar Nazi criticizes me for the misplaced apostrophe: I see it, acknowledge its presence, and hereby state that it was not intentional.
Damn you for spoiling my fun!

Re:Try LinPHA... (1)

TechwoIf (1004763) | more than 7 years ago | (#19101269)

Second here. I started out with IDS (Image Display System, not snort;). But development stalled 3-4 years ago and found LinPHA to replace it. Gallery has a poor UI plus you need to upload one image at a time back then. I do batch FTP uploads and LinPHA just runs with it. No "install" routine necessary. I've heared Gallery fixed this somewhat, but LinPHA has a clean UI.

DRIV (0, Offtopic)

crossmr (957846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19098767)

It does a sufficient job: DRIV [ikea.com]

My own :) (2, Interesting)

shish (588640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19099557)

I had much the same problem, which I attempted to solve with danbooru; after 4 hours of banging my head against ruby on rails and postgres, I decided that there needed to be something which was much like danbooru but a lot easier to set up. Being unable to find such a thing, I made one for myself, and the result is here [shishnet.org] . (tech info / downloads / etc [shishnet.org] )

Plogger (1)

VGfort (963346) | more than 7 years ago | (#19099727)

Plogger [plogger.org]
* Easy Install and Setup -- Single step installation - no fussing with configuration files or server privileges (if allowed). Plogger contains a fully featured, secure administration system. Plogger can be used as a stand-alone gallery or be dropped into your current site with no more than three PHP statements. You can be up and running in less than five minutes.
* Easy Gallery Creation -- You can upload photos one at a time from the web based administrative tool or use an FTP connection to import your photos in groups. Plogger has two levels of organization, allowing you to organize your images efficiently and easily.
* Automatic Thumbnail Generation -- Supports server side caching and high-quality true-color resampling. Thumbnails can be configured to be any size you choose from the options menu. Supports all major image formats (JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF).
* XHTML W3C Compliant -- Plogger outputs properly formatted, fully validated XHTML. This allows the user to configure the look of Plogger via the included style sheet. Your site will remain validated and accessible.
* User Feedback -- Plogger allows you to turn comments on or off for any specified image. Comments are displayed publicly and add an element of community to your gallery.
* RSS support -- Each level of organization can now generate it's own RSS feed. You can subscribe to feeds for a single album, collection, or the entire gallery. Additionally, you can subscribe to a custom set of search terms to keep you updated on your chosen keywords.
* Integrated JavaScript Slideshow -- Any of your albums can be instantly viewed as a hands-free JavaScript slideshow.

roll your own (1)

jmarca (303319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19101693)

I did my own. Been working on it and upgrading it for about 7 years now. Actually I started it as a plugin to Slashcode. Working on that project has ben my way to keep up with stuff. I moved from using Slashcode's DB accessors to Class::DBI, then I decided to ditch slashcode entirely and use Catalyst, then I ditched Class::DBI in favor of DBIx::Class. I have javascript/JSON/AJAX (is AJAJ a real term yet?) interface. We (my wife and I) use it to organize photos and build a static public site. Gallery and the like annoy me because so many pictures suck and people take no time at all to cull the bad ones. So my system is all inward facing, and we pick the good ones (good being subjective, of course) and assemble a static site with words and images, etc. Static is really easy on the server when hit by grandparents and aunts and uncles.

I've played with Image::Magick mostly to do the image manipulation. I looked at GD, but it wasn't feature-full enough. At one time I had lots of interface stuff for Image::Magick routines, like brightness and contrast, etc etc, but even I wasn't using them, so I deleted them. At the moment I have a nifty ajax thing for area of interest, and rotation, and that's pretty much it, but a hold over from the complicated filter days is that I have a crazy pipeline of eval'ed perl stored in the database representing a transform to apply to an image, so that when it is rotated, colored, brightened, or whatever, the transform is applied to the original image, rather than obliterating the original. And in doing that I learned that sometimes a join table in a database has to be three way, or you can get big problems. So I've got a threeway join table, linking the imageid, blobid, and transformid. And I have a small clue about database normalization.

And taking a cue from Slashcode (right before I ditched the code) I bought the argument that it was a good idea to stick images directly in the database. So that's where they are, blobs in the the database. Now I regret that as my images have grown to 2-3 MB rather than about 200K when I started out. Apparently you can play tricks with the server to just memcopy an image from a filesystem to the browser, but not if the image is stuffed in a database.

blah blah blah. I know lots about this stuff, and about perl and apache and mysql and postgresql and ajax and so on that I never would have learned had I not "rolled my own" Why just last weekend I learned about perlcritic and perltidy, and realized how far my usual idioms are from those recommended by Damian Conway. So now I am on a perldoc diet until perlcritic stops whining at me.

Why not Flickr? (1)

voidstin (51561) | more than 7 years ago | (#19101713)

Seems like you're already using most people's favorite LAMP based gallery software - I'd take another look at flickr.

I resisted it for a long time, and just uploaded all my photos to it, and am glad to have them all off my server. flickr's easy to use for me - and more importantly - my family and friends. no training, no maintenance, unlimited space, upload via email + phone - all worth 25/yr to me. (cheaper than research and setup time for the software, or the hard drive I was going to have to buy to store the pictures)

The only downside is the 'not my server' argument. In terms of privacy and backup, I trust their maintenance and organization over my home server. Cal Henderson knows more about that stuff than I do, that's for sure.

Re:Why not Flickr? (1)

Jaseoldboss (650728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19112423)

I trust their maintenance and organization over my home server.

I just couldn't do it, unless there was an easy way of backing everything up including any tags. Photos have got to be the most precious data a family routinely stores.

Why would you pay for Flickr? (1)

CTachyon (412849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19102041)

Unless you're uploading more than 100MB of photos a month, there's no need to pay for a Pro account on Flickr. Storage space is unlimited, there's no bandwidth charges, and they allow <img> tag embedding so long as the photo links back to the photo's Flickr page.

That's not to discount the do-it-yourself option, but if Flickr happens to provide everything you need, why bother installing software on your webserver? (Especially considering you'll need to keep an ear out for security updates, probably by subscribing to a mailing list. PHP-written programs have earned a reputation for insecurity for a reason, but security updates are a reality for web-facing programs in any language.)

Re:Why would you pay for Flickr? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#19107007)

Because unless you buy a Pro account, only your last 200 uploads are visible?

Re:Why would you pay for Flickr? (1)

CTachyon (412849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19125027)

If that's the case, they're sure not up-front about that. Sneaky.

Try Media Wiki (1)

muxecoid (1061162) | more than 7 years ago | (#19103241)

Wikimedia commons runs on it.

Another Question along the same lines (1)

anticypher (48312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19103255)

I recently had a client ask about which photo sharing software to build his web site around. He has a his own dedicated server, disk space and memory are not a problem, but I/O bandwidth and CPU are limited (2x 160Gig drives on IDE cables, some 64 bit AMD processor at 2 GHz or so). His special needs are that he has 40,000 photos or more to put up, and needs a flexible password mechanism so various clients can look at only certain parts of the site, and the internet at large can not spider his collection easily.

He has already tried Gallery 1 & 2, but found that both versions collapse under the weight of a hierarchy of 20,000 photos. Even with just one user browsing, it slows to a crawl when it tries to discover photos up or down the hierarchy. There are knobs in G2 to limit the updates to mySql for things like view count or voting, but those are nothing more than taping over the cracks.

I think he said recently he is trying Coppermine, but has similar problems.

I'll certainly be pointing him to this thread, but if any /.ers know of systems that hold up to a massively large photo set, please reply under this post.

My suggestion to him was to cut down the resolution and quality of the photos, so G2 can process them faster, but it didn't work. It seems the problems stem from the sheer numbers of photos, and limits of mySql. Maybe some tuning of mySql is in order.

the AC

Re:Another Question along the same lines (1)

Joe7_myusernameisalr (1101493) | more than 7 years ago | (#19103615)

That's mostly likely no the number of pictures.
Gallery.Site.hu - a dog photo gallery [gallery.site.hu] hosts ~700,000 photos on Gallery2.

The problem you've mentioned might be the _initial_ creation of resized images, which could be done through a maintenance task, thus it won't slow down the system 'on the fly'.
The other possible problem is the EXIF module, especially pre v2.2. Your best try is to disable that.
Third: Random images. This one is really a problem with the number of pics. G2 should (and will!) use a much more efficient way to show off random images. (Till then, the only temp solution is to disable random pics sections if there is any)

Otherwise there is page level caching in Gallery2, which serves pages really quick :)

Joe7

Re:Another Question along the same lines (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19104745)

You're doing something wrong if Gallery2 can't handle that. I admin a sports photography site using G2 with 130,000+ pictures and it's sharp and responsive, even with 50+ concurrent users.

There's a little trick with G1 to keep it quick, force caching. By default it scans the whole gallery tree every time someone visits the front page, but if you throw in an hourly cron job (or longer, depending on frequency of updates) to do something like this:
wget -O /var/www/html/gallery/cache.html.new http://gallery.example.com/gallery?gallery_nocache =yes [example.com] ; mv /var/www/html/gallery/cache.html.new /var/www/html/gallery/cache.html; chmod a+rx /var/www/html/gallery/cache.html .. you'll find it remains sharp and responsive all the time.

Color profiles (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19133181)

I should have thought to ask this before now nobody will see it... I've been searching for such a software before, but none of those tested will handle embedded color profiles. It's fairly simple: if you submit a large image with an embedded color profile different from sRGB, the image gets saved, a medium sized image is created for web display by converting it to sRGB and also a thumbnail the same way. Also if you submit a TIF or (god forbid), a RAW, the app should try to convert it to jpg. I wrote my own in bash+cgi+ImageMagick but it's buggy and not ready for prime time. Anything better ?!?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?