It took me several seconds to load (compared to about 1-1.5 for HN)... this page needs better hosting for Asian users.
I am a fast webpage
271–280 of 292 posts
Re: I am a fast webpage
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying a VPS is not appropriate for a static HTML web-page, but there are perfectly capable VPSes avaible for $3.50 to $5. I'm not in agreement with many of the commenters regarding CDNs. I don't believe in a free lunch. Free software is one thing, but CDNs require infrastructure, which incur costs. Somewhere, the people offering those services expect to make those costs back. You'll either pay for it directl…
Economies of scale...
Get a decent shared host.
Just because Godaddy sucks doesn't mean that all shared hosting sucks. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is fine for most people, or Amazon S3 if you're into AWS / webgui stuff.
If you're actually using a decent amount of bandwidth (ie: image hosting), something like Hawkhost.com would be good. Just gotta stay away from EIG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group), which is a conglomerate that's buying up all the shared hosts and making them crappy.
Bam. Now you have economies of scale AND far cheaper hosting than any VPS.
Re: I am a fast webpage
#273Here lonely girl looking for fun with the guys http://bit.ly/2cl5OQg
Re: I am a fast webpage
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I apologize for quibbling (really, I do! but I'm an infrastructure guy! This is my bag!). Yes, host it on S3, but ALWAYS put a CDN in front of S3 with long cache times (even just Cloudfront works). S3 can sporadically take hundr…
I don't mind the quibbling, as I've been trying to figure this out myself. From what I see, S3 is $.09/GB to the Internet, and Cloudfront is $.085/GB to NA/Europe...and $.14/GB for Asia. How is this cheaper?
Cloudfront is slightly cheaper than S3, you'd want to look at non-AWS CDNs to get near 1-5 cents/GB for outbound (Cloudflare, Cachefly, etc).
Re: I am a fast webpage
#275You can do much better!
What's about html-muncher for css class minification?
Those png are not fully optimized and an SVG would probably even be smaller too and even if it isn't in the case of the orange one it would have could be compressed much better.
Making use of data: urls might look good on first visit but honestly with HTTP/2 just push in the resources and externalize them.
Because seriously cache for 300 seconds? How about offline support anyways? It's 2016.
Furthermore where's my beloved Brotli support?
By the what's about WebP support? Ok TBH if the PNG would be properly optimized WebP would actually not beat the file size but hey: "It isn't"
So even though it's only this tiny static page there's still so much wrong with it. Please improve! By the way what's about QUIC?
Re: I am a fast webpage
#276You can do much better!
What's about html-muncher for css class minification?
Those png are not fully optimized and an SVG would probably even be smaller too and even if it isn't in the case of the orange one it could be compressed much better than a PNG.
Making use of data urls might look good on first visit but honestly with HTTP/2 just push in the resources and externalize them.
Because seriously cache for 300 seconds? How about offline support anyways? It's 2016.
Furthermore where's my beloved Brotli support?
By the what's about WebP support? Ok TBH if the PNG would be properly optimized WebP would actually not beat the file size but hey: "It isn't"
So even though it's only this tiny static page there's still so much wrong with it. Please improve! By the way what's about QUIC?
Re: I am a fast webpage
#277> "I am not on a shared host, I am hosted on a VPS" Hate to break it to you, but your virtual private server (VPS) is likely sharing a bare-metal server with other VPS. ;-) Also, you can look into content delivery networks (aka CDN), which will most likely deliver this page faster to clients than your VPS especially when you consider your VPS is in Dallas and CDN's have nodes located around the world.
> Hate to break it to you, but your virtual private server (VPS) is likely sharing a bare-metal server with other VPS. ;-) Likely? Isn't that the point of a VPS?
Yeah.
But its also the point of shared hosting, which the site hates on.
A good shared host (ex: HawkHost's semi-dedicated) will run circles around a Lowendbox VPS.
Re: I am a fast webpage
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like it should work, but have you ever tried it? Or, can you point me to some results of a test to show that it indeed caches the image embedded in the CSS?
If it's inline, then it's cached with whatever it's inlined into.
The problem is that now it's going to be sent with every request. So it'll make the first page faster for the initial request, but slower in the long run.
Re: I am a fast webpage
#279Dlang forum (with dynamic content) is insanely fast! https://forum.dlang.org/group/general
I was thinking of exactly the same website.
That's a very fast page, that actually does something.
Re: I am a fast webpage
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economies of scale...
Get a decent shared host. Just because Godaddy sucks doesn't mean that all shared hosting sucks. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is fine for most people, or Amazon S3 if you're into AWS / webgui stuff. If you're actually using a decent amount of bandwidth (ie: image hosting), something like Hawkhost.com would be good. Just gotta stay away from EIG ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group ), which is a congl…
Keeping in mind that you can get a VPS for as low as $3.50 per month, I don't see that there is ever a reason to use shared hosting, and several reasons not to, performance is only one of them.
If you're website is that unimportant, then you could probably get by with any free hosting services where your page would be yourpage.serviceprovider.tld