Current time: 12-15-2017, 03:00 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
05-07-2014, 12:04 AM
Post: #1
Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
Hi,

Please look into the report of my my website http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140506.../details/. I ran the test approx. 10 times and got that this is the best load time because sometimes it increases to approx. 1 minutes. Please let me know the pain areas and what to do to resolve them.

Also can someone help me to understand DNS Lookup,Initial Connection,SSL Negotiation,Time to First Byte,Content Download,3xx response,4xx+ response terminologies.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 03:01 AM
Post: #2
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
So... You want nearly 2 MEGABYTES of information to properly render and display on browsers in what? Less then 4 seconds? How fast do you think this fat page should load?

You are loading 109 images, most of them not optimized.

All that said, I suspect you might be on a shared hosting server that is way oversold, has too many sites on it. Problem is, if you bring this up with your host the first thing they are going to do is blame you, for the 100+ images and the 2 megabyte page size.

So first, I suggest you slim it down as much as possible. In the link I gave above, click under every image where it says "Analyze JEPG" and WPT will give you the properly optimized version of the image in question. (It's usually the third image shown, the one with the smallest KB size) Save it to your computer, rename it to match what is on the server, then upload to overwrite. Do this for every one you see on that page that needs optimized.

This will get rid of the F and D grades you have for image compression and use of progressive JPEGS and will improve load time. Because in the process of doing this you will be trimming nearly 400kb of fat off your site without losing any content.

Look at the A grade you get here, loading just one of your images. The server responds very quickly here - because it's just over 1kb not 2 megabytes.

Show me a fat site and I will show you a slow site, every time. Not trying to be snarky or mean, I'm just giving it to you straight from a guy who has optimized dozens of sites for people. The first thing you have to do is trim the fat everywhere you can.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 04:28 PM
Post: #3
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
You're also testing a site based in India from Chicago. If your intended audience is in the USA, then I recommend that you host it there. This is far more important than @Anton's comments re: images, which really aren't that bad - sure they need addressing if you're after every last ounce of performance. However, it would be simpler just to use a decent CDN to deliver them for you.

Much more importantly, your time to first byte is terrible. I can't comment on the server config, as I know nothing about tuning IIS, but this is where your bottleneck is.

Also looking at the code it seems that you've written the app from scratch. The insertion of javascript all over the place makes it hard to read, and I don't know what effect this will make on the performance.

You also normally set the web server to compress html... 150kb will compress down to under 20kb but from the download times, I'd say this isn't being done.

So... look at compression, clean code, look at using a CDN and test from a local node.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 02:31 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 02:32 AM by Anton Chigurh.)
Post: #4
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
(05-07-2014 04:28 PM)GreenGecko Wrote:  So... look at compression, clean code, look at using a CDN and test from a local node.
CDNs cannot improve performance of a site that isn't optimized, and if you do optimize it, you don't need a CDN.

Testing from a local node isn't revealing - it really doesn't make that much difference. Plus you have no way of knowing if that actually improves the number of "hops" and you have no way of knowing if any of the relays are inherently slow.

Taking 400kb off the fat page by optimizing the images isn't a minor thing at all - it usually improves all the other problems as well. It is a basic MUST of page optimization. It's the FIRST thing anyone who wants to optimize their site, needs to do.

2 MB of data isn't going to load and render fast. Fat sites are slow sites. He needs to SLIM IT DOWN first, then see what his situation is.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 10:52 AM
Post: #5
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
(05-08-2014 02:31 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  CDNs cannot improve performance of a site that isn't optimized, and if you do optimize it, you don't need a CDN.

Yes they do. They deliver with a high bandwidth from a close location, thereby making use of the CDN's fatter pipe and lower latency, as well as helping ensure your own network connection doesn't get flooded by offloading the bandwidth.

(05-08-2014 02:31 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  Testing from a local node isn't revealing - it really doesn't make that much difference. Plus you have no way of knowing if that actually improves the number of "hops" and you have no way of knowing if any of the relays are inherently slow.

Yes it is. You're testing your site configuration, not any inherent issues added by the vagaries of the internet.

As an example, here's my site, tested from Wellington, NZ (local) and London, UK (remote).
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140508_VA_JG/
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140508_6F_JR/

My 26KB image takes over a second to load, as opposed to 100ms, and the whole page 5 seconds instead of 1!

(05-08-2014 02:31 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  Taking 400kb off the fat page by optimizing the images isn't a minor thing at all - it usually improves all the other problems as well. It is a basic MUST of page optimization. It's the FIRST thing anyone who wants to optimize their site, needs to do.

2 MB of data isn't going to load and render fast. Fat sites are slow sites. He needs to SLIM IT DOWN first, then see what his situation is.

Slimming the site down will help, sure. But nowhere near as much as the 5 second TTFB, and compressing the 150KB home page down to c. 15KB ( if that's not already being done ).

You need to realise that there are 2 separate parts to getting a site to perform well. The TTFB is all about server performance, where tuning and resources are paramount. You have completely ignored this... the NINE SECONDS it takes to download the html framework.

The total size of the page is another part entirely, and can be improved by reducing latency, number of files, size of files and network performance. Apart from image optimisation / resizing, a decent CDN affects and can make a huge difference to the time it takes to load.

My lowly ADSL connection down here in rural New Zealand can download at 1.5MB/s on a good day. I'm sure you can add up how long it takes for me to load this page if size is the only factor. All other things ignored, a saving of 400kB = 0.3 seconds in this scenario. On a 17s page load, it's really going to be the top of nobodies list.

(Yes, I agree there are a number of simplifications in this post, but the conclusions are valid)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 11:55 AM by Anton Chigurh.)
Post: #6
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
(05-08-2014 10:52 AM)GreenGecko Wrote:  Yes they do. They deliver with a high bandwidth from a close location, thereby making use of the CDN's fatter pipe and lower latency, as well as helping ensure your own network connection doesn't get flooded by offloading the bandwidth.
BUT... When your site is down. the CDN can't load a page. And when the CDN is down, you are down. And in either event, if your site is not optimized none of the things a CDN does, helps much. And if your site IS optimized, you really don't need a CDN. And you REALLY don't need one if you're a small site on shared hosting.

Quote:Yes it is. You're testing your site configuration, not any inherent issues added by the vagaries of the internet.

As an example, here's my site, tested from Wellington, NZ (local) and London, UK (remote).
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140508_VA_JG/
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140508_6F_JR/

My 26KB image takes over a second to load, as opposed to 100ms, and the whole page 5 seconds instead of 1!
You didn't notice that for some reason, the Wellington browser is only loading 88kb of your site, compared to the 162kb London sees? Think that might account for alot of the difference in the results? I sure do.

In my experience of optimizing a BUNCH of sites for people, location of the test browser just hasn't been a relevant factor. My advice always has been, find ONE test site and parameter in WPT that works reliably and consistently (I use IE10 in Virginia exclusively) and optimize your site to that test.

Quote:Slimming the site down will help, sure. But nowhere near as much as the 5 second TTFB, and compressing the 150KB home page down to c. 15KB ( if that's not already being done ).

You need to realise that there are 2 separate parts to getting a site to perform well. The TTFB is all about server performance, where tuning and resources are paramount. You have completely ignored this... the NINE SECONDS it takes to download the html framework.

The total size of the page is another part entirely, and can be improved by reducing latency, number of files, size of files and network performance. Apart from image optimisation / resizing, a decent CDN affects and can make a huge difference to the time it takes to load.

My lowly ADSL connection down here in rural New Zealand can download at 1.5MB/s on a good day. I'm sure you can add up how long it takes for me to load this page if size is the only factor. All other things ignored, a saving of 400kB = 0.3 seconds in this scenario. On a 17s page load, it's really going to be the top of nobodies list.
You will be amazed what slimming down a site does for TTFB and everything else. As I said, it is the FIRST STEP that should be done before anything else - particularly when we are talking about half a megabyte of totally unnecessary fat. Then after you have done that you can see a much more clear picture of what is going on - and you will actually be able to stop the host's blame shifting when/if the time comes to confront them about their slow, oversold and overloaded machine. There is simply NO compelling reason to have a extra half megabyte of load that's not needed.

In addition, use of a CDN gives the host yet another place to blame shift when the user is confronting them about their slow server.

If this OP is on a shared host, bandwidth is likely limited and/or allocated, and half a megabyte per pageload of unnecessary data NEEDS to be addressed immediately. First, before doing anything else.

That's all I'm saying. Take care of the simple and easy stuff first. Slim down the site and note the improvement, then go from there. The OP wants to get to the "root cause" and I believe, from experience - the root cause is the fat page.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 09:21 PM by Nitin.)
Post: #7
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
The suggestions and replies are appreciable. We have started working on the page size and optimizing the JSS files, Images and the CSS files.


Also i am inquiring about the bandwidth I have been provided from the network management people.

Apart from that there was some discussion going on for the location which I am choosing to run this page. Why I am choosing any other location apart from India because my website is live and anyone can use it from any location, so i need to always check for the worst scenario. Taking this consideration in my mind i use to run the tests from different -2 locations of the globe.

I have run the test today after combining the microsoft ajax requests and compressing the Images. http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140508...1/details/ please analyze the report and let me know what is pending.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 01:48 AM
Post: #8
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
You still have quite a bit of work to do with the images, still 150kb left on the table there but you've made some progress.

In the link I gave in post #2, click under every image where it says "Analyze JEPG" and WPT will give you the properly optimized version of the image in question. (It's usually the third image shown, the one with the smallest KB size) Save it to your computer, rename it to match what is on the server, then upload to overwrite. Do this for every one you see on that page that needs optimized.

This will get rid of the F and D grades you have for image compression and use of progressive JPEGS and will further improve load time.

I test against IE 10 or 11, not chrome or firefox. because IE compliance is by far most challenging.

This file:
Code:
http://www.finalaya.com/Javascripts/combine.js
Is almost 500kb in size and is slowing you down greatly, as you can see in the waterfall chart here. It's call item #7 and takes 5 seconds to download, in this particular test scenario.

Item #47 shown here - do you really need this 176kb png image that loads on browsers whether it is displayed or not? If so you have a good example in item #70 on how many kb you can save by turning item #47 into a gif instead of a png, if it's really compelling to have it at all.

Here's a easy 60kb of savings on another image
. Use the third image you see at the link, overwrite the one that's there.

You should be able to get the total load for this page down around the 1mb mark without losing any content.

Once you get slimmed down as much as possible, I think it is time to confront this host about its slow machine it has your site on. FBT is bad even on test browsers which are very close to the server, for what that's worth.

Example
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 04:49 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2014 04:49 AM by a.chakery.)
Post: #9
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
I noticed that your website is on a Windows server.

You know I am not really want to remove the whole question by my suggestion but if you really want to have an optimized website try to switch to Wordpress, hosted on an optimized Linux based server powered with LiteSpeed or NGiNX.

There are some great plugins for wordpress which will make it really easy for you to optimize your website as fast as possible.

Plus there is a great Theme Framework out there called Genesis which takes care of more than 50% of your page load time.

Good Luck.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 08:38 AM
Post: #10
RE: Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause
@Anton.

"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." Proverbs 17:28.

I hope that your continued bad advice and skewed logic isn't treated as truth by anyone out there. stick to the dayjob, and keep flipping that coin.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)