httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <>
Subject Re: mod_imagick...anyone?
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:20:28 GMT
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Michael Montero wrote:

> My main concern would be with how expensive ImageMagick calls can be and
> the need to call both mogrify and convert (in my experience) to get a
> single thing done to an image.  I would much rather read an image into
> memory and then perform a host of functions to it rather then read, write,
> read, write, etc.

Fair enough, though...

> Of course, this is all less interesting if there is a proxy caching the
> images.  In which case, the performance hit is to generate the initial
> image only.

This was the point I was trying to make, yes.  No matter which path you
chose, you're likely to want mod_cache anyway if there's any amount of
redundancy in the images you're computing (which, for the kind of site you
described, I can only imagine that there WOULD be)... and if you're using
mod_cache, then you might be able to justify that extra bit of initial
overhead more easily.

It's definitely the case that a native module will perform better, and
should be the preferred option if it will have to run frequently (eg, if
the parameters passed change frequently enough that mod_cache would be
ineffective).  Although I'd still be interested to consider the mod_perl
module option that was just mentioned in that case.

I'm just trying to save you a little development time.  :)


View raw message