91–100 of 292 posts
Not that wickedly fast unless you're really near Dallas where the server is: https://performance.sucuri.net/domain/varvy.com Hosting on a single VPS is never gonna be very fast globally no matter what you pay your hosting. In fact our free plan on netlify would make this a whole lot faster...
Off topic, but is that service showing crazy slow numbers for "USA, Atlanta" for anyone else?
Took me almost 30 seconds to load, maybe because the server is being hammered by HN traffic right now? Also like others here were saying, using a CDN would definitely help with the initial latency.
Example:
Business A - average render time 0.3s, but under load 5-10s
Business B - average render time 0.8s, but under load 1-2s.
Subjectively, around ~10s response time is the point I would close the tab and look for another business if I was trying to do shopping online, anything involving a credit card etc.
Ehh, I just got 10.91s load time in Chrome 53 from Colorado, USA. Image of Chrome Dev Tools: https://reportcards.scdn3.secure.raxcdn.com/assets/uploads/f... As an aside, does HTTP/2 provide any benefit for a single HTML file with no external assets?
Just to point out, there's no particular reason to host a page like this on a VPS at all. You could just throw it on S3. Even better, you could put it behind a CDN like Cloudfront and the total cost would be a dollar or two a month, not $25+ and it would be significantly faster.
Yeah I notice that was weird too. The creator speaks a lot about about html optimizations but one of the most widely-used methods of page speed increases are global CDN distribution. The SSD is really meaningless in this context. The website is so small that it will be loaded almost 100% from the filesystem cache. As long as it has more than 512 MB of ram... If I wanted my website to load incredibly fast, I would abs…
I can see in the source code that you're expressing all dimensions in terms of ems and %s. A technology such as Bootstrap will always be the way to go; however, could you tell us a little bit more about how you did this? How did you ensure that it looks good not only on your screen but on any screen? I know people are saying it has some errors on certain mobile devices, but that's still some pretty good job manipulat…
What? Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudfront requires JavaScript, which isn't always acceptable. Edit: Nevermind, confused Cloudfront with Cloudflare. Thanks for the correction, toomuchtodo.
Cloudflare does, Cloudfront (AWS' CDN) does not. EDIT: cm3: I didn't mean to call you out, just wanted my reply in here for historical context. Its very easy to confuse the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long S3 takes to fulfil a request does not affect bandwidth. I personally went the other way. I still use CloudFront as a CDN but made it cache items for short periods of time. Invalidation was too much of a hassle, and it took too long. Admittedly, I should use hashes or something of the sort to keep my items versioned, but laziness always gets in the way.
> How long S3 takes to fulfil a request does not affect bandwidth. Correct. Did I insinuate that? I apologize if I did. They are two distinct issues, both of which a CDN prevents. 1. S3 outbound bandwidth is expensive. Use it only as an object store of last resort. Your CDN bandwidth is orders of magnitude cheaper (don't believe me, go compare the pricing). 2. S3 response times can vary wildly at times. Use a CDN to…
Agreed on all other counts.
Ehh, I just got 10.91s load time in Chrome 53 from Colorado, USA. Image of Chrome Dev Tools: https://reportcards.scdn3.secure.raxcdn.com/assets/uploads/f... As an aside, does HTTP/2 provide any benefit for a single HTML file with no external assets?
It took 2 seconds to load the page on a fresh ec2 box:
time_namelookup: 0.061
time_connect: 0.100
time_appconnect: 0.223
time_pretransfer: 0.223
time_redirect: 0.000
time_starttransfer: 1.935
----------
time_total: 2.066