We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
uploaded it with no trouble.
finally got one (yours).
I wonder if it's something to do with the filename?
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
Yeah, it's either the URL or some aspect of the image. I don't suspect filetype. My guess is the URL or the file dimensions are causing the error.
None.
I just tried posting that image as
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4752/suntest.png and
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5933/sentest.png and neither worked. There has to be something about that image or the URL that is screwing this up. Do other imageshack URLs work?
EDIT:
EDIT2
Looks like imageshack works. It has to be that image.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2010, 10:16 pm by DevliN.
Currently Working On: My Overwatch addiction.
I can't upload it to tinypic, it's too big.
It's definitely imageshack and the size of the image.
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/8642/sensun.pngI'm doubtful if it's the image itself. This is a compressed version of the same image, which won't post.
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2010, 11:40 pm by rockz.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
The URL rockz just posted, sensun.png... I attempted to preview that as an IMG tag and got an SQL error:
A Staredit Network error has occured:
Query failed : SELECT * FROM attachments WHERE att_mid=5726 AND ((att_status=0 AND att_posts=0))
2006
MySQL server has gone away
Please contact administration with all the details.
The problem is clearly with the thumbnail code, the code that checks an image's size and if it's too large, writes out a JS-enabled IMG. But why would that fail to function?
We should try to narrow this down. Is it a problem with the image simply being too large, or is there something about that particular size or range of sizes?
None.
It's most likely any picture larger than 425 pixels. Let me test...Nope, hm.
Interesting to note that for a period of time, I was unable to post the first image without an error. It works now, apparently.
EDIT> Test 4500x2234
EDIT2> I'm losing minerals by editing this post. Sigh.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 11 2010, 12:12 am by Aristocrat.
None.
It's the images themselves.
http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/sensun.png - Saved the image from imageshack into my server.
http://98.202.196.115/.png - Not the filename
http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/shakurastiles2.png - Original image only from my server. Doesn't work.
http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/Psi.png - Original image only from my server ... but it works
TinyMap2 - Latest in map compression! ( 7/09/14 - New build! )
EUD Action Enabler - Lightweight EUD/EPD support! (ChaosLauncher/MPQDraft support!)
EUDDB -
topic - Help out by adding your EUDs! Or Submit reference files in the References tab!
MapSketch - New image->map generator!
EUDTrig -
topic - Quickly and easily convert offsets to EUDs! (extended players supported)
SC2 Map Texture Mask Importer/Exporter - Edit texture placement in an image editor!
This page has been viewed [img]http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/Clicky.php?img.gif[/img] times!
PyMS and ProTRG developer
The problem is clearly with the thumbnail code, the code that checks an image's size and if it's too large, writes out a JS-enabled IMG. But why would that fail to function?
We should try to narrow this down. Is it a problem with the image simply being too large, or is there something about that particular size or range of sizes?
Thats what I've been thinking. Here are the images from the thread I was trying to post when I originally found this problem, I don't have time to test them but I believe at least some result in the same error:
Might not be the problem, but I'm told it's not good practice to store images and such directly in the database (as BLOBs or whatnot) if you have the option not to. Storing the images to the file system and referring to them by their address in the database is more preferable.
Might consider that for both a speed improvement and a possible fix.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 11 2010, 3:31 am by Tuxedo-Templar.
None.
Quote from name:Tuxedo-Templar
Might not be the problem, but I'm told it's not good practice to store images and such directly in the database (as BLOBs or whatnot) if you have the option not to. Storing the images to the file system and referring to them by their address in the database is more preferable.
Might consider that for both a speed improvement and a possible fix.
I don't think that anything on SEN except for
maybe the file upload functionality does that. It would be a good speed improvement except that I don't think there's anything on SEN where that change isn't already in effect.
None.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
Incidentally, I rarely post images in my posts but I've been getting this error all the time, randomly, since it began. I just refresh and it works.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Quote from name:Tuxedo-Templar
Might not be the problem, but I'm told it's not good practice to store images and such directly in the database (as BLOBs or whatnot) if you have the option not to. Storing the images to the file system and referring to them by their address in the database is more preferable.
Might consider that for both a speed improvement and a possible fix.
SEN doesn't store images in the database.
I think the problem isn't really the images themselves, but they take a little longer to parse or something. It seems the connection time allowed is just on the edge of having issues and the images sets it off.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 11 2010, 10:05 pm by Forsaken Archer.
None.
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
So it might be some recently implemented inefficient code that is slowing down the parsing?
Because it worked fine for years, images or not.
The function called to get the image size might be a fairly recent addition because it would provide information necessary for thumbnails and resizing.
Quote from name:Tuxedo-Templar
Might not be the problem, but I'm told it's not good practice to store images and such directly in the database (as BLOBs or whatnot) if you have the option not to. Storing the images to the file system and referring to them by their address in the database is more preferable.
Might consider that for both a speed improvement and a possible fix.
SEN doesn't store images in the database.
I think the problem isn't really the images themselves, but they take a little longer to parse or something. It seems the connection time allowed is just on the edge of having issues and the images sets it off.
This would be my guess. It could be possible the script is waiting for a response from the server? And during that time the SQL connection times out.
None.