Log folder HUUUGE

ok, I hear you.

I’m uncertain if I want to create the option or simply remove the log functionality (and delete the files).

The log could be a tool for finding out what went wrong in case of a conversion error. It could also be used in the new File Manager (just released!) for displaying which conversion options was used for a conversion. I’m however not sure if it is that useful.

Btw: I’m curious to hear if the new File Manager works with that many images. I suspect it will time out, as the whole image file structure is loaded in one go. If it times out, I will consider dynamically loading parts of the tree

PS: You find the File Manager in the Media menu

I understand. But then you should give the options for users to choose if to log it or not. Don’t make the decision for the users ;-).

I just tried it. It’s loading the file tree. For five minutes now…

Btw. I have three questions (probably better for an email?).
1. We run more websites on our server. Server is set up for all of them the same. How is it possible that on one site cwebp is possible to run and not on others?
2. Which service is the best to use? Server admin doesn’t want to install untested packages. And it’s very unclear if gd or imagick (PHP) does all the things correctly and fast or some other conversion method is better (vips?).
3. Some images like logos or others are not converted (no idea why). If we bulk convert then it means to work with hundreds or thousands of images not needed to convert just to convert that single one. Is the convert file manager ready for that?

Regarding the file manager, you should load just folders and if people go into it then load the folders when it’s needed. Not to load all the files at the beginning. That doesn’t make sense. Or if you load them all successfully then you should cache it somewhere not to load them all again when you go there next time.

Yeah, I think I will go with the option rather than disabling logging completely.

And yes, it seems loading parts of the tree will be necessary. It is simpler to implement loading the whole tree – that is how it made sense ??

ad 1)
Should not be possible. Have you tried “test” button on the cwebp converter (in settings). It might reveal what is working and what is not

ad 2)
If you use a new version of Imagick, it is fine. The newest version of ImageMagick supports all the important options. In WebP Express 0.21.0, which was just released, the log tells you if an option requires a newer version of ImageMagick API. Again, go to settings and click “test” in the Imagick converter. Speed-wise, Imagick is only marginally slower than cwebp and vips. The log tells you the time it took to convert a file.

ad 3)
Try examining if there is a corresponding log file for some images that was not converted. Conversion might have failed for some reason. I’m guessing you are you are using the “Enable redirection to converter?” feature for converting? And you are aware that it only triggers conversion for images that are requested. And with that many images, it is actually neat that only the thumbnails and images that are actually used, which is converted. So the reason you do not want to run Bulk Convert is that it converts everything, filling up your server with conversions that will never be requested. Yes, the File Manager will be just what you need. However, not until the next release, as the current (pre-)release only allows you to browse images/conversions.

1) yeah, it runs well for one site, not for the others, weird
2) cwebp vs vips vs gd = feature wise, is there a difference? Some shows that it also remove metadata etc. I don’t really care what to use if the end result is the same
3) Just for requested image, I’m not sure what you mean by Redirection to converter, can’t find it. But I just saw that maybe I must convert the whole content folder, not just uploads and themes…

ad 2)
cwebp vs vips = potato vs potato.
but do not use gd. gd has no other options than “quality”. It for example doesn’t have the very important option to convert to lossless webp. This means that there is no/little benefit in converting PNGs with Gd. In some cases, jpegs are compressed better losslessly, so you will not get as good jpegs either.

ad 3)
It is in the “.htaccess rules for webp generation” section on the settings page.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by rosell.dk.
• This reply was modified 3 years ago by rosell.dk.

Ok, thanks. And yeah, let’s wait for the next release then with the possibility to switch off the logs and better image manager ;-).

They are part of the next milestone ??
https://github.com/rosell-dk/webp-express/milestone/13

Just released a bug fix because of a bug introduced in a PR. As I already had made the dynamic loading of the tree, and it could be considered as a bug that it was failing in case of huge amounts of images, I pushed it along in the bugfix.

In other words, you should be able to browse image files now (0.21.1).

Yeah it works, thanks.

I have one issue, do you have any idea why here https://www.keengamer.com/ the first two images at the top on mobile views do not show webp in Google insights? Everything else works fine and it’s in the uploads folder. But with having the images created on requests it seems that it doesn’t work here… :-/

Well, no, it doesn’t work. If I browse to some image and click it then I have at the top in red written Invalid scope. And that’s it.

Oh!
What does the path say? (in the right pane)
The first part of the path is what I call “scope”. If it for example says “/wp-content/[..]”, the scope is “wp-content”. Valid scopes are ie “uploads”, “themes” and “wp-content”. It must (and should) match what you selected in settings page. I would only think you would be able to get that message if you changed the scope after loading the file manager.

Eh, true. I switched from Upload and themes to all content and that made the problem. Now it’s fine if you load it all again.

Still there must be an option to convert individual images in the future from the file manager.

Any ideas about those not processed images I asked above?

Thanks.