WebPagetest Forums

Full Version: Thanks Pat!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Check it out!

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110325_0E_88SQ/

Yesterday at this time my dating site had an A on keep-alive and F's on everything else. Now I'm all A's except for "compress images" which is up to a C and good enough for now!

Thanks again for all your help.
The next order of business is reducing image requests, which I may do with CSS sprites, or I may just change my php to output a shorter list of results. I'll get to that next week Smile
More importantly, the start render and load times improved quite a bit (and your work on the image requests will really help top it off). Nice work!

Don't necessarily change the behavior of the site to make it measure faster. If the images are getting loaded from top to bottom and most of them are below-the-fold the end-user performance will feel faster than the measured time. You could also do something where results past #3 or 4 have the images populated by javascript after onLoad (store the src in an alternate tag and just loop through and set the src for each of them (or unhide the logos) in an onload handler.

-Pat
Thanks again, this site is an awesome resource! Will definitely send people this way.
Close to 80% of the load time is now spent on loading tiny images - if you split them across 3-4 subdomains you could save at least half of it (shave another 2 seconds off load time).
Agreed. You have no real parallelization going on there. Though i'd look at your analytics and see what the majority of your users use before optimizing parallel downloads. IE7 and under allows only 2 connections per domain, but IE8 allows up to 6 I believe, which drastically changes the parallel performance.
Reference URL's