version 6.4.2-3 "CPU hog" with GIF files?
Posted: 2008-07-18T03:08:30-07:00
Hello.
I have some thoughts i'd like to share.
I use IM to generate images for an online signs designer.
Till one month ago, i had version 6.3.7 installed. All was fine, but at some point i needed to be able to limit memoty usage and i noticed the new limit memory and map option. So i updated to 6.4.2-1.
But that verion had some issues with GIF files: converting a PNG with transparent BG to GIF caused the GIF to have black BG. And so, yesterday, i updated to the very last version 6.4.2-3. Gladly i saw that the GIF BG issue was fixed.
GIF would not be needed by me, but i have to keep it: as i have to face the damned Intenret Explorer6 issues with PNG, i simply created a final step in my script that converts the final image to GIF if the client is an IE6.
I have a simple popup that allows users to choose a font. In it, i render a small image for each font using user's text, so that they can choose better. Basically, a page that load around 40 small images in one page, and all generated via IM.
With FireFox (and so having IM serving PNG images), no major issues.
But opening that popup with IE6 (and so having IM serving GIF images converted from the abovementioned PNGs) caused a true nightmare. The server was completely frozen, i had to request a reboot.
Trying on another machine and looking at "top" output (i'm on a linux server), i noticed an incredibly high CPU usage when using IE6 to load that page. Around 6-8% CPU for each conversion from PNG to GIF.
The commands i'm using are really simple, here they are:
Generate the PNG font image:
convert -background none -font SOMEFONT -pointsize 15 -fill "rgb(0,0,0) label:"SOMETEXT" PNGFILE
Converting it in GIF if the client is IE6:
convert PNGFILE -background none -flatten GIFFILE
With 6.3.7, i never experienced something like that. What i would like to know is if this is a known behavior or not.
If i don't want to freeze the server, it's quite obvious i'll need a version with this solved before updating again, evenif this can't be properly called a "bug".
Any thought on this?
I have some thoughts i'd like to share.
I use IM to generate images for an online signs designer.
Till one month ago, i had version 6.3.7 installed. All was fine, but at some point i needed to be able to limit memoty usage and i noticed the new limit memory and map option. So i updated to 6.4.2-1.
But that verion had some issues with GIF files: converting a PNG with transparent BG to GIF caused the GIF to have black BG. And so, yesterday, i updated to the very last version 6.4.2-3. Gladly i saw that the GIF BG issue was fixed.
GIF would not be needed by me, but i have to keep it: as i have to face the damned Intenret Explorer6 issues with PNG, i simply created a final step in my script that converts the final image to GIF if the client is an IE6.
I have a simple popup that allows users to choose a font. In it, i render a small image for each font using user's text, so that they can choose better. Basically, a page that load around 40 small images in one page, and all generated via IM.
With FireFox (and so having IM serving PNG images), no major issues.
But opening that popup with IE6 (and so having IM serving GIF images converted from the abovementioned PNGs) caused a true nightmare. The server was completely frozen, i had to request a reboot.
Trying on another machine and looking at "top" output (i'm on a linux server), i noticed an incredibly high CPU usage when using IE6 to load that page. Around 6-8% CPU for each conversion from PNG to GIF.
The commands i'm using are really simple, here they are:
Generate the PNG font image:
convert -background none -font SOMEFONT -pointsize 15 -fill "rgb(0,0,0) label:"SOMETEXT" PNGFILE
Converting it in GIF if the client is IE6:
convert PNGFILE -background none -flatten GIFFILE
With 6.3.7, i never experienced something like that. What i would like to know is if this is a known behavior or not.
If i don't want to freeze the server, it's quite obvious i'll need a version with this solved before updating again, evenif this can't be properly called a "bug".
Any thought on this?