🚀 go-pugleaf

John A B Wright  <vintage@jabw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article Peter Corlett <abuse@mooli.org.uk> writes
>> Who actually *needs* 65MB for a website anyway?
> Who? Me of course. Have you been paying attention?

> Currently I have 2.7 megs of text and tables, 8.3 megs of photos, 8.6 megs
> of music, so every time I want to put up a new music file something has to
> archive.

I've just mirrored the site at www.jabw.demon.co.uk to do some experiments.
This gave 16,535,146 bytes of data in my mirror.

You have 5,509,896 bytes of WAV files. These are 11 or 22kHz 8 bit mono
audio files. That's not terribly inefficient, and it sounds awful too.
Re-encoding in MP3 you can improve the quality and/or reduce the diskspace
requirement. Reducing bandwidth requirements also allows you to stream the
clips to modem users.

3,616,836 bytes of JPEGs became 3,403,033 after I converted them into
optimised progressive JPEGs. This was by using a lossless transformation.
It's only 200kB, but every bit helps, and progressive JPEGs display faster
too. Doing a full decompress/recompress got it down to 2,283,301. (By the
way, some of your JPEG files appear to be corrupt, and one file ending .jpg
is actually a GIF.)

There's 4,637,375 bytes of GIFs. Many of these have over 200 colours, which
suggests they are photos so recompression into JPEG would be better. I
recompressed them to about half the original size. PNG would be another
possibility.

Going through and generally optimising the data would probably save you
3-5MB of space, and make your site feel faster too.

> Now with 65 meg I can make accessible all the archives and continue adding
> new music and photos, for a while anyway :0)

I hope your visitors all have broadband with that amount of data :)