131–140 of 324 posts
If you want to have fun with this: the initial window (IW) is determined by the sender. So you can configure your server to the right number of packets for your website. It would look something like: ip route change default via dev initcwnd 20 initrwnd 20 A web search suggests CDNs are now at 30 packets for the initial window, so you get 45kb there.
Any reference for this?
The article has IMO two flawed arguments: 1. There is math for how long it takes to send even one packet over satellite connection (~1600ms). Its a weak argument for the 14kb rule since there is no comparison with a larger website. 10 packets wont necessarily take 16 seconds. 2. There is a mention that images on webpage are included in this 14kb rule. In what case are images inlined to a page’s initial load? If this…
Low resolution thumbnails that are blurred via CSS filters over which the real images fade in once downloaded. Done properly it usually only adds a few hundred bytes per image for above the fold images.
I don’t know if many bloggers do that, though. I do on my blog and it’s probably a feature on most blogging platforms (like Wordpress or Medium) but it’s more of a commercial frontend hyperoptimization that nudges conversions half a percentage point or so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what I said. Only that the responsible engineers know which tradeoffs they make, and are competent enough to do so.
The decision to use react for the start menu wasnt out of competency. The guy said on twitter that thats what he knew so he used it [1]. Didnt think twice. Head empty no thoughts 1 https://x.com/philtrem22/status/1927161666732523596
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what I said. Only that the responsible engineers know which tradeoffs they make, and are competent enough to do so.
The decision to use react for the start menu wasnt out of competency. The guy said on twitter that thats what he knew so he used it [1]. Didnt think twice. Head empty no thoughts 1 https://x.com/philtrem22/status/1927161666732523596
Does anyone know have examples of tiny, yet aesthetically pleasing websites or pages? Would love it if someone kept a list.
The overlap of people that don’t know what TCP Slow Start is and those that should care about their website loading a few milliseconds faster is incredibly small. A startup should focus on, well, starting up, not performance; a corporation large enough to optimise speed on that level will have a team of experienced SREs that know over which detail to obsess.
Does anyone know have examples of tiny, yet aesthetically pleasing websites or pages? Would love it if someone kept a list.
Hopefully you'll find some of them aesthetically pleasing
How relevant is this now, if you have a modern server that supports HTTP/3? HTTP/3 uses UDP rather than TCP, so TCP slow start should not apply at all.
As per the article, QUIC (transport protocol underneath HTTP/3) uses slow start as well. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/id/draft-ietf-quic-recovery...
One other advantage of QUIC is that you avoid some latency from the three-way handshake that is used in almost any TCP implementation. Although technically you can already send data in the first SYN packet, the three-way handshake is necessary to avoid confusion in some edge cases (like a previous TCP connection using the same source and destination ports).
I agree with the sentiment here, the thing is, I've noticed that the newer generations are using frameworks like Next.js as default for building simple static websites. That's their bare bone start. The era of plain html + css (and maybe a sprinkle of js) feels like it's fading away, sadly.
The article has IMO two flawed arguments: 1. There is math for how long it takes to send even one packet over satellite connection (~1600ms). Its a weak argument for the 14kb rule since there is no comparison with a larger website. 10 packets wont necessarily take 16 seconds. 2. There is a mention that images on webpage are included in this 14kb rule. In what case are images inlined to a page’s initial load? If this…
Also the assumption that my userbase uses low latency satellite connections, and are somehow unable to put up with my website, when every other website in current existence is multiple megabytes.
Just because everything else is bad, doesn't invalidate the idea that you should do better. Today's internet can feel painfully slow even on a 1Gbps connection because of this; websites were actually faster in the early 2000s, during the transition to ADSL, as they still had to cater to dial-up users and were very light as a result.