<![CDATA[WebPagetest Forums - All Forums]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:37:23 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[979 revision upgrade problems]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10506 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:41:03 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10506
Just tried to upgrade. What is the right way of upgrading the database with no data loss?

I tried GenerateTable.php and them migrate.php. Unfortunately got errors:

PHP Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Doctrine_Migration_Exception' with message '16 error(s) encountered during migration\n========================================\n Error #1 - SQLSTATE[HY000]: General error: 1 duplicate column name: timezone. Failing Query: "ALTER TABLE User ADD timezone VARCHAR(60)"\n#0 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Con​nection.php(1025): Doctrine_Connection->rethrowException(Object(PDOException), Object(Doctrine_Connection_Sqlite), 'ALTER TABLE Use...')\n#1 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Exp​ort.php(621): Doctrine_Connection->execute('ALTER TABLE Use...')\n#2 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration\\Process.php(89): Doctrine_Export->alterTable('User', Array)\n#3 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration.php(522): Doctrine_Migration_Process->processCreatedColumn(Array)\n#4 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration.php(479): Doctrine_Mi in C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration.php on line 457
Just tried it with no historical data. Same error.]]>
Just tried to upgrade. What is the right way of upgrading the database with no data loss?

I tried GenerateTable.php and them migrate.php. Unfortunately got errors:

PHP Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Doctrine_Migration_Exception' with message '16 error(s) encountered during migration\n========================================\n Error #1 - SQLSTATE[HY000]: General error: 1 duplicate column name: timezone. Failing Query: "ALTER TABLE User ADD timezone VARCHAR(60)"\n#0 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Con​nection.php(1025): Doctrine_Connection->rethrowException(Object(PDOException), Object(Doctrine_Connection_Sqlite), 'ALTER TABLE Use...')\n#1 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Exp​ort.php(621): Doctrine_Connection->execute('ALTER TABLE Use...')\n#2 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration\\Process.php(89): Doctrine_Export->alterTable('User', Array)\n#3 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration.php(522): Doctrine_Migration_Process->processCreatedColumn(Array)\n#4 C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration.php(479): Doctrine_Mi in C:\\xampp\\htdocs\\webpagetest\\wptmonitor\\lib\\vendor\\doctrine\\Doctrine\\Mig​ration.php on line 457
Just tried it with no historical data. Same error.]]> <![CDATA[Chrome loads, but page won't load]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10497 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:55:52 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10497
When I launch a test for Chrome, the browser would pop up, but the actual page I want to test won't load. It would just show a blank page.

My wptdriver.ini looks like this:
[WebPagetest]
url=http://ip_here
location=us-west-Chrome
browser=Chrome
key=key_here
;debug=1

[Chrome]
exe=""C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe""
options='--load-extension="%WPTDIR%\extension" --user-data-dir="%PROFILE%" --new-window --no-proxy-server --no-first-run --no-default-browser-check --enable-experimental-extension-apis'

[Firefox]
exe="C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
options='-profile "%PROFILE%" -no-remote'
template=firefox


locations.ini

[us-west]
1=us-west-IE7
2=us-west-IE8
3=us-west-IE9
4=us-west-Firefox
5=us-west-Chrome
default=us-west-IE7
label="US West (San Francisco)"

...

[us-west-Chrome]
browser=Chrome
label="US West, Chrome"
key=key_here


Any ideas on what could be causing this error?]]>
When I launch a test for Chrome, the browser would pop up, but the actual page I want to test won't load. It would just show a blank page.

My wptdriver.ini looks like this:
[WebPagetest]
url=http://ip_here
location=us-west-Chrome
browser=Chrome
key=key_here
;debug=1

[Chrome]
exe=""C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe""
options='--load-extension="%WPTDIR%\extension" --user-data-dir="%PROFILE%" --new-window --no-proxy-server --no-first-run --no-default-browser-check --enable-experimental-extension-apis'

[Firefox]
exe="C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
options='-profile "%PROFILE%" -no-remote'
template=firefox


locations.ini

[us-west]
1=us-west-IE7
2=us-west-IE8
3=us-west-IE9
4=us-west-Firefox
5=us-west-Chrome
default=us-west-IE7
label="US West (San Francisco)"

...

[us-west-Chrome]
browser=Chrome
label="US West, Chrome"
key=key_here


Any ideas on what could be causing this error?]]> <![CDATA[Ultimate Wordpress Caching (not for the non-programmers)]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10494 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:47:49 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10494 php-development-guide.com, and I decided to use wordpress (though i altered it to act as an article cms)... and as usual found that my shared host has terrible database performance.
Well, I found the best way to curb this issue is to actually not do any database calls whatsoever. The issue with plugins like w3 total cache and others is that they exists at the plugin level, so database connections and calls are made even with their caching attempts. However, if you put your caching code at the beginning of all code execution, you can get around that.
For wordpress, all pages are loaded via the main index.php (NOT the template file!). The main index.php is contained at the root of your wordpress install. For me, the index.php file only contained these lines:

PHP Code:
// comments

define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php'); 


Here is the caching code I came up with:

PHP Code:
<?php
// comments from wordpress...

// since this is before any wordpress debugging
// if you want error reporting for tests, uncomment this line
 //error_reporting(E_ALL);

// Grab page url to make a cache file name
 $getPageName=str_replace('/','_',$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']);

 // use whitelist regex for extra security, otherwise you can do things like directory traversal (aka, .../)
 $getPageName=str_replace('_.','.',preg_replace('/[^ 0-9A-Za-z\_]/', '',$getPageName).'.txt');
 
 // If requesting home page there will be no file name, so set one
 if($getPageName=='.txt')
 {
 $getPageName='homepage.txt';
 }

 // Directory where you cache files will be stored. Directory should have write permissions for everyone
 $cacheDirectory='cache/';
 
 // Set expire time, text is based on what strtotime() php function supports
 $expireTime='5 days';
 
 $cacheFileExists = FALSE;
 
 // Check if cache file already exists
 // if so, get last modified date and compare it to current date (to see if it's expired)
if(file_exists($cacheDirectory.$getPageName))
{
$cacheFileExists = TRUE;
$cacheFileModifyDate = date ("r", filemtime($cacheDirectory.$getPageName));
$currentCacheDate = strtotime(date("r"));
$cacheExpirationDate =strtotime($cacheFileModifyDate."+".$expireTime);
}
else
{
// otherwise, set all info to ''
$cacheFileModifyDate = '';
$currentCacheDate = '';
$currentCacheDate = '';
$cacheExpirationDate ='';
}

// If cache file expired, or if cache file doesn't exist, generate a new one
if($currentCacheDate >= $cacheExpirationDate || $cacheFileExists == FALSE) {

// Use output buffer to grab contents generated by wordpress
ob_start();
define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php');

// Grab output buffer contents
$cacheFileContents=ob_get_contents();

// Flush to browser before recording cached contents
ob_end_flush();

// Open file for writing
$cacheFileOpen = fopen($cacheDirectory.$getPageName, 'w');

// Write cache contents to file and close file
fwrite($cacheFileOpen, $cacheFileContents);
fclose($cacheFileOpen);
}else{

// If file is cached and not expired, grab and echo contents
echo file_get_contents($cacheDirectory.$getPageName);
}
?>

This drastically cut down on the time to first byte and brought me from an F to an A. When the cache is on, the only thing php has to do is check if the cache file exists and is not expired, if it passes, it loads and outputs text straight from the cache file to screen. No database calls or anything is done and so backend processing is almost non-existant.

The Results
No Cache, TTFB= 3.074 seconds:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120131...1/details/

With Cache, TTFB= 0.414 seconds:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120131...1/details/


Some things to note:
First I designed this for my site, where I turned wordpress isn't an article cms, and did so with no user comments. So for me, as it is now, it's fine. However, if you have users placing comments via wordpresses internal comment system (as opposed to something like disqus), you will need to program something to invalidate the cache (like delete the cache file) if a new comment is made. This should be easy enough, you just have to edit the wp-comments-post.php file, grab and generate the current url and then delete the cache file. Or, the other option is to deal with the comments not showing by just setting a lower cache time (like 3 hours). But it may seem odd to the user if the comments don't show right away, so i'd still recommend invalidating the cache.
Secondly, since this is editing the core wordpress files (as it has to), it will get overridden when a wordpress update is done. But these additions are so generic you can easily re-apply them with each update.]]> php-development-guide.com, and I decided to use wordpress (though i altered it to act as an article cms)... and as usual found that my shared host has terrible database performance.
Well, I found the best way to curb this issue is to actually not do any database calls whatsoever. The issue with plugins like w3 total cache and others is that they exists at the plugin level, so database connections and calls are made even with their caching attempts. However, if you put your caching code at the beginning of all code execution, you can get around that.
For wordpress, all pages are loaded via the main index.php (NOT the template file!). The main index.php is contained at the root of your wordpress install. For me, the index.php file only contained these lines:

PHP Code:
// comments

define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php'); 


Here is the caching code I came up with:

PHP Code:
<?php
// comments from wordpress...

// since this is before any wordpress debugging
// if you want error reporting for tests, uncomment this line
 //error_reporting(E_ALL);

// Grab page url to make a cache file name
 $getPageName=str_replace('/','_',$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']);

 // use whitelist regex for extra security, otherwise you can do things like directory traversal (aka, .../)
 $getPageName=str_replace('_.','.',preg_replace('/[^ 0-9A-Za-z\_]/', '',$getPageName).'.txt');
 
 // If requesting home page there will be no file name, so set one
 if($getPageName=='.txt')
 {
 $getPageName='homepage.txt';
 }

 // Directory where you cache files will be stored. Directory should have write permissions for everyone
 $cacheDirectory='cache/';
 
 // Set expire time, text is based on what strtotime() php function supports
 $expireTime='5 days';
 
 $cacheFileExists = FALSE;
 
 // Check if cache file already exists
 // if so, get last modified date and compare it to current date (to see if it's expired)
if(file_exists($cacheDirectory.$getPageName))
{
$cacheFileExists = TRUE;
$cacheFileModifyDate = date ("r", filemtime($cacheDirectory.$getPageName));
$currentCacheDate = strtotime(date("r"));
$cacheExpirationDate =strtotime($cacheFileModifyDate."+".$expireTime);
}
else
{
// otherwise, set all info to ''
$cacheFileModifyDate = '';
$currentCacheDate = '';
$currentCacheDate = '';
$cacheExpirationDate ='';
}

// If cache file expired, or if cache file doesn't exist, generate a new one
if($currentCacheDate >= $cacheExpirationDate || $cacheFileExists == FALSE) {

// Use output buffer to grab contents generated by wordpress
ob_start();
define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php');

// Grab output buffer contents
$cacheFileContents=ob_get_contents();

// Flush to browser before recording cached contents
ob_end_flush();

// Open file for writing
$cacheFileOpen = fopen($cacheDirectory.$getPageName, 'w');

// Write cache contents to file and close file
fwrite($cacheFileOpen, $cacheFileContents);
fclose($cacheFileOpen);
}else{

// If file is cached and not expired, grab and echo contents
echo file_get_contents($cacheDirectory.$getPageName);
}
?>

This drastically cut down on the time to first byte and brought me from an F to an A. When the cache is on, the only thing php has to do is check if the cache file exists and is not expired, if it passes, it loads and outputs text straight from the cache file to screen. No database calls or anything is done and so backend processing is almost non-existant.

The Results
No Cache, TTFB= 3.074 seconds:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120131...1/details/

With Cache, TTFB= 0.414 seconds:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120131...1/details/


Some things to note:
First I designed this for my site, where I turned wordpress isn't an article cms, and did so with no user comments. So for me, as it is now, it's fine. However, if you have users placing comments via wordpresses internal comment system (as opposed to something like disqus), you will need to program something to invalidate the cache (like delete the cache file) if a new comment is made. This should be easy enough, you just have to edit the wp-comments-post.php file, grab and generate the current url and then delete the cache file. Or, the other option is to deal with the comments not showing by just setting a lower cache time (like 3 hours). But it may seem odd to the user if the comments don't show right away, so i'd still recommend invalidating the cache.
Secondly, since this is editing the core wordpress files (as it has to), it will get overridden when a wordpress update is done. But these additions are so generic you can easily re-apply them with each update.]]> <![CDATA[Where to go from here...]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10492 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:03:32 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10492
During the day this is a typical test result: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120131...7e57bd593/

I've setup caching and optimized as best I know how and when I monitor the loads during a test with .top there's nothing that jumps out (i.e. low memory usage, low cpu load averages and I/O .wa have only short peaks in the 5% range).

From this point, how do I figure out whether the slow ttfb is caused by the VPS or the node/network it's on. The one thing that points me to the node is that ttfb improves dramatically (to under a second) during off hours but I'd like to be sure that I'm not missing something.

Thanks for any help.]]>
During the day this is a typical test result: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120131...7e57bd593/

I've setup caching and optimized as best I know how and when I monitor the loads during a test with .top there's nothing that jumps out (i.e. low memory usage, low cpu load averages and I/O .wa have only short peaks in the 5% range).

From this point, how do I figure out whether the slow ttfb is caused by the VPS or the node/network it's on. The one thing that points me to the node is that ttfb improves dramatically (to under a second) during off hours but I'd like to be sure that I'm not missing something.

Thanks for any help.]]> <![CDATA[Download Error]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10490 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:56:04 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10490
I am amazed by this cool testing tool and I wanted to download it for using it locally.

I am downloading from this URL:
http://webpagetest.googlecode.com/files/...st_2.5.zip
The download starts normally but slows down at the end and results in an error message saying that the source file can't be read from server. I tried both with IE and FF (just to be sure it was a real server side/network issue).

I tried even on another machine (inside of my same network) and it is also getting the same error. Does it depends on the network or is there an error on the server or zip file? In this second case, can someone upload the zip in another location?

Thanks a lot!]]>
I am amazed by this cool testing tool and I wanted to download it for using it locally.

I am downloading from this URL:
http://webpagetest.googlecode.com/files/...st_2.5.zip
The download starts normally but slows down at the end and results in an error message saying that the source file can't be read from server. I tried both with IE and FF (just to be sure it was a real server side/network issue).

I tried even on another machine (inside of my same network) and it is also getting the same error. Does it depends on the network or is there an error on the server or zip file? In this second case, can someone upload the zip in another location?

Thanks a lot!]]> <![CDATA[First Byte Time - MediaTemple]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10488 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:32:01 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10488 http://www.mermaidecoresort.com - This website is not even using a MySQL Database yet. It will soon, but the First Time Byte is a whopping 42s. I contacted media temple and they told me that I need to log on to my Linux Apache Server via SSH and optimize the apache conf file and optimize it to fix this issue. Does anyone have any experience with this. I was not able to do it. I would really really appreciate it if someone could shed some light.

A conversation between me and Media Temple


Thank you for your inquiry.

I have reviewed your (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server and ran a MySQL performance report. The results show a need to modify the settings in the 'etc/my.cnf' file to better handle requests and memory allocation. Also, notice the need to use phpMyAdmin and run the repair tables tool. I am including a screen shot of the report below:

https://skitch.com/roneill/g56k9/terminal-ssh-81x52

I am including some (mt) KnowledgeBase articles in regards to this for reference below:

Using MySQL Report on a (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/1558

Using MySQLTuner
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/70

Basic MySQL performance tuning (MySQLd)
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/258

(dv) Increasing Max MySQL Connections
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/711

Managing a MySQL database with phpMyAdmin
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/426/...h+phpMyAdm in#dv_40

Optimizing your (dv) server
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/771

(dv) HOWTO: Basic Apache performance tuning (httpd)
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/246

http://wiki.mediatemple.net/w/%28dv%29_4..._It_Better

(dv) 4.0 - Making It Better :: Installing Plesk Health Monitor
http://wiki.mediatemple.net/w/%28dv%29_4...alling_Ple sk_Health_Monitor


MY REPLY:

Thanks for the prompt reply. I have one last question, this specific website is not relying on the MySQL server we are just hosting html pages for the time being yet it's slow. Can you please give me a link to any tutorial so I can specifically fix my errors with the First Byte Time.


Their Final REPLY

Thank you for your reply.

I understand where you are coming from in regards to, mermaidecoresort.com, being a static site. However, the MySQL resources are directly tied into the Apache resources. So your static HTML site is suffering do to the overall performance of your (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server. I would focus on the 'etc/my.cnf' file, repairing the tables in phpMyAdmin, and adjusting the prefork settings in Apache. This should resolve the issue.

Please keep in mind that the (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server is a self-managed server, and assistance with its configuration and maintenance is outside of the (mt) Media Temple scope of support. All suggestions in this message were provided as a courtesy.]]> http://www.mermaidecoresort.com - This website is not even using a MySQL Database yet. It will soon, but the First Time Byte is a whopping 42s. I contacted media temple and they told me that I need to log on to my Linux Apache Server via SSH and optimize the apache conf file and optimize it to fix this issue. Does anyone have any experience with this. I was not able to do it. I would really really appreciate it if someone could shed some light.

A conversation between me and Media Temple


Thank you for your inquiry.

I have reviewed your (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server and ran a MySQL performance report. The results show a need to modify the settings in the 'etc/my.cnf' file to better handle requests and memory allocation. Also, notice the need to use phpMyAdmin and run the repair tables tool. I am including a screen shot of the report below:

https://skitch.com/roneill/g56k9/terminal-ssh-81x52

I am including some (mt) KnowledgeBase articles in regards to this for reference below:

Using MySQL Report on a (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/1558

Using MySQLTuner
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/70

Basic MySQL performance tuning (MySQLd)
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/258

(dv) Increasing Max MySQL Connections
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/711

Managing a MySQL database with phpMyAdmin
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/426/...h+phpMyAdm in#dv_40

Optimizing your (dv) server
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/771

(dv) HOWTO: Basic Apache performance tuning (httpd)
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/246

http://wiki.mediatemple.net/w/%28dv%29_4..._It_Better

(dv) 4.0 - Making It Better :: Installing Plesk Health Monitor
http://wiki.mediatemple.net/w/%28dv%29_4...alling_Ple sk_Health_Monitor


MY REPLY:

Thanks for the prompt reply. I have one last question, this specific website is not relying on the MySQL server we are just hosting html pages for the time being yet it's slow. Can you please give me a link to any tutorial so I can specifically fix my errors with the First Byte Time.


Their Final REPLY

Thank you for your reply.

I understand where you are coming from in regards to, mermaidecoresort.com, being a static site. However, the MySQL resources are directly tied into the Apache resources. So your static HTML site is suffering do to the overall performance of your (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server. I would focus on the 'etc/my.cnf' file, repairing the tables in phpMyAdmin, and adjusting the prefork settings in Apache. This should resolve the issue.

Please keep in mind that the (dv) Dedicated-Virtual Server is a self-managed server, and assistance with its configuration and maintenance is outside of the (mt) Media Temple scope of support. All suggestions in this message were provided as a courtesy.]]> <![CDATA[parallel css]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10487 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:06:08 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10487
So perhaps its best not to put all css in one file but to split them into many files? Can someone confirm this?]]>
So perhaps its best not to put all css in one file but to split them into many files? Can someone confirm this?]]> <![CDATA[Chrome 16, Firefox 9 return blank page]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10486 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:15:19 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10486 WebPageTest: 2.5
Chrome: 16.0.912.77
Firefox: 9.0.1

I found a thread, http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showth...tid=10187, it means the bug has been fixed in the SVN trunk?]]> WebPageTest: 2.5
Chrome: 16.0.912.77
Firefox: 9.0.1

I found a thread, http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showth...tid=10187, it means the bug has been fixed in the SVN trunk?]]> <![CDATA[Google Jquery.min.js takes 3secs]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10478 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:21:30 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10478
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120128_PJ_3197D/]]>
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120128_PJ_3197D/]]> <![CDATA[Page speed]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10477 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:54:33 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10477
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120127_GF_31672/

Also I notice that many items overlap so it seems that there isn't any point in reducing some of these items. The initial first byte is very slow at 2.4 - 3 seconds which I think is the web server but otherwise can someone have a look at the result and just give a general opinion.]]>
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120127_GF_31672/

Also I notice that many items overlap so it seems that there isn't any point in reducing some of these items. The initial first byte is very slow at 2.4 - 3 seconds which I think is the web server but otherwise can someone have a look at the result and just give a general opinion.]]> <![CDATA[Performance Results (Median Run)]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10475 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:01:44 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10475
First View (Run 5) - Load Time = N
Repeat View (Run 2) - Load Time = N

Are these results (5 and 2) the overall average ?]]>
First View (Run 5) - Load Time = N
Repeat View (Run 2) - Load Time = N

Are these results (5 and 2) the overall average ?]]> <![CDATA[How can I improve the load times?]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10474 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:56:19 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10474
This seems like a really good tool and I have optimized quite a few things since yesterday. One thing however got me worried is the load time from different locations.

Here is the test result from a US test server -> http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120127_1P_31118/

Here is one from a Singapore server -> http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120127_NR_31100/

The primary userbase is in the Indian subcontinent so am not sure that the first result is anything to be happy about. In the second result, the repeat view actually takes much longer Confused

Can you guys tell me what all can be done to improve the performance.]]>
This seems like a really good tool and I have optimized quite a few things since yesterday. One thing however got me worried is the load time from different locations.

Here is the test result from a US test server -> http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120127_1P_31118/

Here is one from a Singapore server -> http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120127_NR_31100/

The primary userbase is in the Indian subcontinent so am not sure that the first result is anything to be happy about. In the second result, the repeat view actually takes much longer Confused

Can you guys tell me what all can be done to improve the performance.]]> <![CDATA[Expire header on Wordpress php files]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10472 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:46:36 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10472
When I opened up index.php, all I got is this:
Quote:<?php
/**
* Front to the WordPress application. This file doesn't do anything, but loads
* wp-blog-header.php which does and tells WordPress to load the theme.
*
* @package WordPress
*/

/**
* Tells WordPress to load the WordPress theme and output it.
*
* @var bool
*/
define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php');
?>

Seems like that file isn't going to change for a very long time, so it's probably safe to put a long expire time for it. However, now that I think about it, doesn't all the php files on Wordpress is practically remains the same (only the database content changes from time to time)? Anyway I'd like to hear your opinion on the best way to add a cache header on the index.php and perhaps the other php files as well.

Here is the content of the current .htaccess file on cache control:
Quote:<IfModule mod_expires.c>
ExpiresActive On
ExpiresByType image/png "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType image/jpeg "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType image/gif "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType text/css "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType application/x-javascript "access plus 5184000 seconds"
</IfModule>

Thanks]]>
When I opened up index.php, all I got is this:
Quote:<?php
/**
* Front to the WordPress application. This file doesn't do anything, but loads
* wp-blog-header.php which does and tells WordPress to load the theme.
*
* @package WordPress
*/

/**
* Tells WordPress to load the WordPress theme and output it.
*
* @var bool
*/
define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php');
?>

Seems like that file isn't going to change for a very long time, so it's probably safe to put a long expire time for it. However, now that I think about it, doesn't all the php files on Wordpress is practically remains the same (only the database content changes from time to time)? Anyway I'd like to hear your opinion on the best way to add a cache header on the index.php and perhaps the other php files as well.

Here is the content of the current .htaccess file on cache control:
Quote:<IfModule mod_expires.c>
ExpiresActive On
ExpiresByType image/png "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType image/jpeg "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType image/gif "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType text/css "access plus 5184000 seconds"
ExpiresByType application/x-javascript "access plus 5184000 seconds"
</IfModule>

Thanks]]> <![CDATA[Slow Time to First Byte: WP Super Cache & W3TC ]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10471 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:32:49 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10471
Surprisingly when I tried WP Super Cache everything was resolved automatically and TTFB is consistently always on A, with the occassional drops but very rare.

I tried to ask Frederick Townes about this but I understand that he's very busy and doesn't have time to respond to every one inquiry. The thing is I still want to use W3TC as it has better features built-in compared to WP Super Cache. But every time I go back to W3TC then TTFB would jump back up again, so I'm definitely on WP Super Cache now.

This is just a post from one webmaster to another. You can try WP Super Cache and see if it works for you. If not you can always go back to using W3TC. On my site I had all the optimization but was always stuck with TTFB times, turns out that Super Cache is the solution.

Disclaimer: no relation with W3TC or WP Super Cache whatsoever, just trying to throw an idea for those of you having problems.

PS: Here is a recent test that I did: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120126_0M_30B19/]]>
Surprisingly when I tried WP Super Cache everything was resolved automatically and TTFB is consistently always on A, with the occassional drops but very rare.

I tried to ask Frederick Townes about this but I understand that he's very busy and doesn't have time to respond to every one inquiry. The thing is I still want to use W3TC as it has better features built-in compared to WP Super Cache. But every time I go back to W3TC then TTFB would jump back up again, so I'm definitely on WP Super Cache now.

This is just a post from one webmaster to another. You can try WP Super Cache and see if it works for you. If not you can always go back to using W3TC. On my site I had all the optimization but was always stuck with TTFB times, turns out that Super Cache is the solution.

Disclaimer: no relation with W3TC or WP Super Cache whatsoever, just trying to throw an idea for those of you having problems.

PS: Here is a recent test that I did: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120126_0M_30B19/]]> <![CDATA[Location list is empty]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10470 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:56:40 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10470
Here is my locations.ini
[locations]
1=CORBETTXPIE7
default=CORBETTXPIE7

;
; These are the top-level locations that are listed in the location dropdown
; Each one points to one or more browser configurations
;

[CORBETTXPIE7]
1=IE
2=Test
default=IE
label=CORBETTXPIE7

[IE]
browser=IE 8
latency=0
label="CORBETTXPIE7 - IE 8"
;browserExe=pagetest.exe
;key=TestKey123

Here is my urlblaster.ini:
[Configuration]
Startup Delay=30
Log File=c:\webpagetest\agent\urlblast
Timeout=120
use current account=1

; Where to get work from
Url Files Url=http://127.0.0.1/work/
Location=IE
;Location Key=TestKey123

Any help would be greatly appreciated!]]>
Here is my locations.ini
[locations]
1=CORBETTXPIE7
default=CORBETTXPIE7

;
; These are the top-level locations that are listed in the location dropdown
; Each one points to one or more browser configurations
;

[CORBETTXPIE7]
1=IE
2=Test
default=IE
label=CORBETTXPIE7

[IE]
browser=IE 8
latency=0
label="CORBETTXPIE7 - IE 8"
;browserExe=pagetest.exe
;key=TestKey123

Here is my urlblaster.ini:
[Configuration]
Startup Delay=30
Log File=c:\webpagetest\agent\urlblast
Timeout=120
use current account=1

; Where to get work from
Url Files Url=http://127.0.0.1/work/
Location=IE
;Location Key=TestKey123

Any help would be greatly appreciated!]]> <![CDATA[do all browsers without http-proxy]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10466 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:33:19 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10466 in wptdriver.ini chrome.exe is started with parameter --no-proxy-server. You said wpt isn't made to measure through http-proxies. Are IE and FF started without http-proxy, too? Doesn't that, at least for IE, depend on Windows-Internet-settings of the agent?
Regards, Nils]]> in wptdriver.ini chrome.exe is started with parameter --no-proxy-server. You said wpt isn't made to measure through http-proxies. Are IE and FF started without http-proxy, too? Doesn't that, at least for IE, depend on Windows-Internet-settings of the agent?
Regards, Nils]]> <![CDATA[The real speed of loading web site]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10462 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:57:58 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10462 I know that it takes time to speed up site load ... and I have invested some time on this issue.
A few days ago my friend recommended the site to test
http://www.webpagetest.org

and to do a comparison. Incredibly, his load of 1.5 seconds and my site by 7.8 seconds. I took pictures, cleaned up code, CSS, and the same is repeated in the result. What could be a problem. He told me that my hosting is not good quality. Is that correct, and what else do I need to obat attention? I would like to keep my slider, but if it is a problem I will find another solution...Test my site is located at:http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120125_6W_3027R/1/details/

Any small suggestions will help me a lot

Thanks!

.jpg  test.jpg (Size: 100.64 KB / Downloads: 108) ]]> I know that it takes time to speed up site load ... and I have invested some time on this issue.
A few days ago my friend recommended the site to test
http://www.webpagetest.org

and to do a comparison. Incredibly, his load of 1.5 seconds and my site by 7.8 seconds. I took pictures, cleaned up code, CSS, and the same is repeated in the result. What could be a problem. He told me that my hosting is not good quality. Is that correct, and what else do I need to obat attention? I would like to keep my slider, but if it is a problem I will find another solution...Test my site is located at:http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120125_6W_3027R/1/details/

Any small suggestions will help me a lot

Thanks!

.jpg  test.jpg (Size: 100.64 KB / Downloads: 108) ]]> <![CDATA[redirects confuse FF-measurements]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10461 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:43:50 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10461 I am using wpt 2.5 (incl. agent-patch for Chrome/FF-agents) wth IE 8, Chrome 16 and FF 7-agents.

I have the following problems with my FF 7-measurements:

Many of my pages do redirects in different ways. Some pages are loaded from the onload-event of a wait-page, for example. The FF-results of these pages are getting into a mess: e.g. a search result-page shows a document complete-time of about 4 and a fully loaded-time of about 5.5 seconds, tested with IE 8. Same page tested with FF 7 shows a document complete-time of 0.1 and a fully loaded-time of about 3.5 seconds. The first html-request for the wait-page is measured for document loaded-time, apparently (see attachement).

I will try to integrate some end condition-commands in wpt-scripts like requiredRequest (with requests for static resources on the main page) but don' know whether that will change the measurements.

Do you have another idea to obtain comparable IE- and FF-measurements with pages incl. redirects?

.jpg  FF_DocReadyNearly0.jpg (Size: 216.44 KB / Downloads: 29) ]]> I am using wpt 2.5 (incl. agent-patch for Chrome/FF-agents) wth IE 8, Chrome 16 and FF 7-agents.

I have the following problems with my FF 7-measurements:

Many of my pages do redirects in different ways. Some pages are loaded from the onload-event of a wait-page, for example. The FF-results of these pages are getting into a mess: e.g. a search result-page shows a document complete-time of about 4 and a fully loaded-time of about 5.5 seconds, tested with IE 8. Same page tested with FF 7 shows a document complete-time of 0.1 and a fully loaded-time of about 3.5 seconds. The first html-request for the wait-page is measured for document loaded-time, apparently (see attachement).

I will try to integrate some end condition-commands in wpt-scripts like requiredRequest (with requests for static resources on the main page) but don' know whether that will change the measurements.

Do you have another idea to obtain comparable IE- and FF-measurements with pages incl. redirects?

.jpg  FF_DocReadyNearly0.jpg (Size: 216.44 KB / Downloads: 29) ]]> <![CDATA[From Dedicated Server to VPS]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10459 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:42:21 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10459
Right now with the dedicated server I get an i.3, 3.2 GHz Dual Core CPU, 2GB DDR3 1333Mhz RAM, 1TB/Month transfer, a 250GB Drive and 250GB back up.

I talked to my hosting's sales guy and he said that the technicians told him that I'm only using anywhere from 600MB to 1GB of Ram on average.

My monthly bandwith usage is only around 50GBs, and I'm only using 30GB out of my 250GB space.

I'm thinking of moving to a VPS with either: 2GB of RAM and 800GB/mth transfer, or a 1.5GB of RAM with 600GB/mth transfer.

In the past one year, we've doubled our average daily page views. So if the same trend continue, I assume that one year from now I'm only going to be using 100GB of transfer and 2GB of RAM. We're also getting better at configuring the site so that a lot of things are cached, and almost all static contents are on a CDN now, so I actually expect RAM and bandwith usage to drop this month.

Recently I've also tried test driving Amazon's EC2, but I think for now I'd rather keep things simple and use a fully managed hosting.

FYI this is one of the most recent test results that we got:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120124_DF_2ZMA1/

Any comments are appreciated.]]>
Right now with the dedicated server I get an i.3, 3.2 GHz Dual Core CPU, 2GB DDR3 1333Mhz RAM, 1TB/Month transfer, a 250GB Drive and 250GB back up.

I talked to my hosting's sales guy and he said that the technicians told him that I'm only using anywhere from 600MB to 1GB of Ram on average.

My monthly bandwith usage is only around 50GBs, and I'm only using 30GB out of my 250GB space.

I'm thinking of moving to a VPS with either: 2GB of RAM and 800GB/mth transfer, or a 1.5GB of RAM with 600GB/mth transfer.

In the past one year, we've doubled our average daily page views. So if the same trend continue, I assume that one year from now I'm only going to be using 100GB of transfer and 2GB of RAM. We're also getting better at configuring the site so that a lot of things are cached, and almost all static contents are on a CDN now, so I actually expect RAM and bandwith usage to drop this month.

Recently I've also tried test driving Amazon's EC2, but I think for now I'd rather keep things simple and use a fully managed hosting.

FYI this is one of the most recent test results that we got:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120124_DF_2ZMA1/

Any comments are appreciated.]]> <![CDATA[Will mass tests on 1 day harm your website?]]> http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10457 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:10:29 +0000 http://www.webpagetest.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10457 Let's say I want to run tests ALL DAY on a website that usually generates only 15 uniques a day. (reason is irrelevant)
Will the unique hits generated by this tool on this 1 day we run tests (by means of bounce rate, all the analysed info, etc.) cause a website to lose it's place on Google searches?
Are there any repercussions to testing your website consistently over a certain amount of hours?
Is there a difference between running 100 test and 5,000 tests a day with any issues?
*If its not recommended to run this amount of test per day why is that information not located anywhere easily accessible? (I assume it's okay to run any amount of tests anytime you want, it should be, otherwise 3rd parties need to fix the way they index)
Thank you!]]> Let's say I want to run tests ALL DAY on a website that usually generates only 15 uniques a day. (reason is irrelevant)
Will the unique hits generated by this tool on this 1 day we run tests (by means of bounce rate, all the analysed info, etc.) cause a website to lose it's place on Google searches?
Are there any repercussions to testing your website consistently over a certain amount of hours?
Is there a difference between running 100 test and 5,000 tests a day with any issues?
*If its not recommended to run this amount of test per day why is that information not located anywhere easily accessible? (I assume it's okay to run any amount of tests anytime you want, it should be, otherwise 3rd parties need to fix the way they index)
Thank you!]]>