Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#71

Post by patrec »

amelius wrote: post #64
leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

Actually I don't even read the articles anymore when on mobile. I just use HN, and hope somebody posts a TL;DR, or some relevant comment that gives some more information about the article. Only if this is not the case will I consider clicking on the article link. It's pretty sad actually. I secretly wish there was some way that allows us (as a community) to collaboratively "pirate" articles, perhaps as a torrent (IPF…

Try turning off javascript in your main mobile browser (e.g. safari) and turning it on in your secondary one (e.g. chrome).

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#72

Post by richmarr »

leeoniya wrote: post #56
richmarr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... something you should measure rather than just assume How do people do this? My obstacle with this point is each CDN would have a different impact in each locale due to the locations of their points of presence, and CDN-ing each resource would a different impact based on the sites that particuar individual had visited. Measuring it in any useful way in advance of a change would be really hard unless I'm missing…

my recommendation is to first serve everything yourself over TLS (minified, bundled, gzipped). if you can, run HTTP2. then measure. if this does not deliver the perf you expect (chances are that it will), then look into CDNs. if you need to serve media that needs a lot of bandwidth (expensive) then look into CDNs. if you need some form of real-time comm like WebSockets or WebRTC that actually requires low latency, lo…

Sure, my question was how people measure.

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#73

Post by jasonkostempski »

pjmlp wrote: post #69
leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

The browsers should have stayed HTML/CSS but then someone had this idea to try to compete with native applications....

I sort of agree, i just think JS and content from other domains should have required user prompts.

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#74

Post by leeoniya »

richmarr wrote: post #72
leeoniya wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my recommendation is to first serve everything yourself over TLS (minified, bundled, gzipped). if you can, run HTTP2. then measure. if this does not deliver the perf you expect (chances are that it will), then look into CDNs. if you need to serve media that needs a lot of bandwidth (expensive) then look into CDNs. if you need some form of real-time comm like WebSockets or WebRTC that actually requires low latency, lo…

Sure, my question was how people measure.

your best bet is https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance

combined with either IP2location or Geolocation apis.

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#75

Post by leeoniya »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #73
pjmlp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The browsers should have stayed HTML/CSS but then someone had this idea to try to compete with native applications....

I sort of agree, i just think JS and content from other domains should have required user prompts.

and https by default should have never allowed off-domain or insecure/mixed content.

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#76

Post by hawski »

leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

I am with you, but I don't believe that this solution will be ever used by the majority of developers.

Browser caches should be bigger. They also should be more intelligent. It does not make sense to evict a library from cache if it is the most popular library used. Maybe having two buckets, one for popular libraries and another for the rest.

I think that it would help if script tag had a hash attribute. Then cache could become more efficient. But without the first part it would be useless. Example:
Or different syntax (whatever I'm not W3C):

  
  
    
      18741e66ea59c430e9a8474dbaf52aa7372ef7ea2cf77580b37b2cfe0dcb3fd7
I would like to make an experiment, but as I am not experienced with webdev as much, it could take too much time for me. Test all major browsers with fresh install and default settings. Go to reddit or other links aggregator and load in sequence several links in same order on every browser. Check how efficiently cache was used. I would expect that after 10th site is loaded nothing would remain from the 1st one. Even though the same version of some library and maybe even link to CDN was used.

I am amazed how quickly fully static pages work even after I am on capped speed mobile connection (after I use 1.5 GB packet).

EDIT: The most helpful thing would be to have good dead-code removing compilers for JavaScript.

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#77

Post by pluma »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #29
leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

> stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that, in real usage, it is cheaper to load common libraries from a CDN because in a public CDN (for something like jQuery), the library is likely to already be cached from another website and has a cha…

In theory public CDNs are the solution. In practice it only works if a critical mass of websites use them.

As others have pointed out, the version matters. There are a gazillion different versions of jQuery out there and many websites are very slow to update them if ever. So you only benefit by visiting multiple sites that use exactly the same version.

Additionally there is a ton of different public CDNs. Now, jQuery itself has solved this by providing an official jQuery CDN and pushing it to developers. In fact, the first result for "jQuery CDN" is their own website.

I'd say jQuery is probably the least bad example of this. If you visit enough websites there's a non-zero chance you'll have a CDN cache hit for jQuery on a few of them.

The problem is that jQuery rarely comes alone. Even jQuery UI is less widely deployed than jQuery and thus less likely to be cached from a CDN. But once you get into plugin territory or third-party libraries all bets are off.

I'm fairly certain that jQuery is the only library that has some realistic chance of benefiting from a public CDN. Everything else is probably asking for trouble (if only because you're adding unnecessary single points of failure).

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#78

Post by nattmat »

roryisok wrote: post #60
leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

> literally cannot consume the internet without uMatrix & uBlock Origin hear hear. and on mobile, its painful because I can't have those (windows phone at least). planning on buying a DD-WRT compatible router soon so I can do some kind of router level ad-blocking and let me browse on the phone again PS: opera mobile for android has a built in adblocker

A Raspberry Pi running Pi-Hole is what you want. https://pi-hole.net/

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#79

Post by dchest »

hawski wrote: post #76
leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

I am with you, but I don't believe that this solution will be ever used by the majority of developers. Browser caches should be bigger. They also should be more intelligent. It does not make sense to evict a library from cache if it is the most popular library used. Maybe having two buckets, one for popular libraries and another for the rest. I think that it would help if script tag had a hash attribute. Then cache c…

Check out the list of security problems you'll need to solve to implement hash-addressable caching:

Subresource Integrity Addressable Caching https://hillbrad.github.io/sri-addressable-caching/sri-addre...

Re: System loads web pages 34 percent faster by fetching files more effectively

#80

Post by supergreg »

roryisok wrote: post #60
leeoniya wrote: post #19

but we can already make web pages load 500% faster by not shoveling a ton of shit, not loading scripts from 60 third-party domains (yes stop using CDNs for jQuery/js libs, those https connections aren't free - they're much more expensive than just serving the same script from your existing connection), reducing total requests to 1.22MB embedded youtube players [1], 500kb of other js bloat, 200kb of webfonts, 150kb of…

> literally cannot consume the internet without uMatrix & uBlock Origin hear hear. and on mobile, its painful because I can't have those (windows phone at least). planning on buying a DD-WRT compatible router soon so I can do some kind of router level ad-blocking and let me browse on the phone again PS: opera mobile for android has a built in adblocker

I use uBlock in Firefox for Android. There's also AdAway to block domains in the /etc/hosts file.
Post reply on HN