WebPagetest Forums

Full Version: CDN Issue / Question?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi everyone!

I'm new to using WebPageTest (What a handy tool!), and noticed an issue (or question perhaps) that I wanted to ask about.

When I run WebPageTest, it tells me that I don't have an "effective use of CDN" (I have a big black X), but my website does use CDN through 1&1's web hosting.

Is there a reason why WebPageTest would not think that I have a CDN, or is there a reason why the CDN may not be "effective"?

It just seemed odd to me, so I wanted to ask to see what might be going on there. If there's something that I need to do on my end, I want to make sure that it gets done.

Thanks for your help!
The X just means you aren't using a CDN.

The "effective use of CDN" is a judgment call, as in many cases CDNs just don't make sense.
(06-29-2017 12:24 AM)dfavor Wrote: [ -> ]The X just means you aren't using a CDN.

The "effective use of CDN" is a judgment call, as in many cases CDNs just don't make sense.

Thank you very much for your response.

I AM using a CDN however, so I'm a little confused as to why WebPageTest doesn't see that. My concern is that Google also may not be able to see it...?

I'm not sure if this is a bug in WebPageTest, or something specific to my CDN (which is provided through 1&1).

Thank you very much for your help!
I could have said this better as logic call, rather than judgement call.

For example, with membership sites, CDNs make zero sense, because no content can be cached + if it ever is, then you're down a bottomless rabbit hole debugging odd problems.

If your LAMP Stack is tuned, so your native site throughput is measured in 1000s of reqs/sec, then most likely CDNs will provide no benefit + never ending debug problems.

If your site is very slow + you can't afford hiring someone to tune it, then use CloudFlare's free version, till you have enough profit to hire someone to tune your LAMP Stack for you.

As for Google seeing your CDN, all you have to do is visit your site using...

curl -I -L $URL

and you'll see all your site headers.

And use dig to ensure your DNS is correctly pointed to your CDN...

dig $host/$domain ns

If you post your full URL, likely someone will let you know what you can refine.
Thank you very much for your help.

I'm a bit new to web design, so I apologize for having so many questions. I am trying to improve the site speed (it's a simple html site), so I am looking at any recommendations available to do so.

I'm sorry about not posting the web address before. The website is http://www.disasterblaster.com

I do have a CDN set up, and if I test the site with 1&1's tool, it confirms this. I wasn't sure if I found some sort of a bug or what, because I figured WebPageTest would also see this? I don't see anywhere in the 1&1 panel to adjust any settings or anything that might affect this either.

So, I run tests with each update and take the recommendations and try to implement some of them in the next update.

One change that really confused me was enabling Cache Static Content, because this actually had a negative impact on the speed of my site.

The main page for instance, prior to enabling Cache Static Content, had a LoadTime of 2.57s, but after enabling Cache Static Content, the LoadTime is AT LEAST 3.8s (This can be as high as 6s)...

The NewsArchive page (my heaviest page) at disasterblaster.com/newsarchive.html had a LoadTime of 8.75s, but after enabling Cache Static Content, it is now coming in at 14.25s.

Over the last month or so, I have had some really significant gains, but Cache Static Content appears to have taken that all away... I even replaced the web.config file with a backup of the original, and it went back to where it was...

The text added to the web.config looks like so:

<staticContent>
<clientCache cacheControlMode="UseMaxAge" cacheControlMaxAge="30.00:00:00" />
</staticContent>

So, with such a hit, I'm not sure that there is a benefit for my site of using Cache Static Content unless search engines put a lot of weight in doing so...

Also, what is the goal for a LoadTime? My goal has been to reduce it as much as possible, but I don't know what is considered good... When I started the first page had a LoadTime of over 16s, so I think I'm well on my way...

Thanks again for your help. I'm trying to improve this as much as possible.
Reference URL's