Current time: 11-20-2019, 06:04 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Weird Results?
12-04-2013, 04:28 PM
Post: #1
Weird Results?
Hi,

Im having the toughest time, here are my results :

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131204_MG_735/

Pingdom Website Speed Test results : load time 3.08s

GTmetrix :

http://gtmetrix.com/reports/hermanfurnit...m/vcsRclYX

all the testing differ vastly, can someone please enlighten me of whats going on?

I'm usings the basic plan on hostwinds, should i change my web hosting altogether?


Thanks,

Cheers


Attached File(s) Image(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 08:14 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 12:01 AM by robzilla.)
Post: #2
RE: Weird Results?
The test results differ because the variables differ. On WebPageTest you've selected the Singapore test location and IE8 browser, at GTMetrix you're testing with Firefox from a Vancouver, Canada location. With the huge amount of resources you're loading, the added latency is going to make a big difference. A test from Denver, CO (closest to Vancouver) will be more similar to the GTMetrix results:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131204_W1_DP7/

But if you look closely at your WPT results from Singapore, you'll also notice most of the time is spent processing the page by the CPU (graph at the bottom of the waterfall). So that test machine is having a tough time rendering all your page elements.

As for Pingdom, those results look rather unreliable; more of an estimate of page load time than a measurement, it seems.

In short, all WPT/GTMetrix tests are run on computers with varying hardware configurations, so it is to be expected that results will be different between sites and test locations. They may also run different test software and interpret the results differently.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 12:07 AM
Post: #3
RE: Weird Results?
Hi Robzilla,

Thanks for the info, i overlooked it! My client is from Singapore, how can i know what the loading speed in singapore is? right now, the test results in singapore on my site is :http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131204_WK_GAZ/

75 secs is horrid. I'm using the basic plan on hostwinds, should i change my web hosting altogether?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 12:46 AM
Post: #4
RE: Weird Results?
Ideally, you would host your site closest to where your client's clients (i.e. most of the site's visitors) are located. If that's Singapore, then you should probably host your site with a company in Singapore. If it's a worldwide audience, Dallas, TX should be fine.

As I mentioned earlier, the long load time in your Singapore test results is caused by CPU processing, so it doesn't necessarily take as long for everyone who visits the site. It may simply be that the test location was experiencing high loads at the time, or is hosted on slower hardware than other test locations. The biggest win for you is to cut back the number of HTTP requests (images mostly).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 02:57 AM
Post: #5
RE: Weird Results?
btw, the best way to know how the site is performing for the actual users is to look at some real-user perfomance reporting. Google analytics and SOASTA botha have free offerings. Tools like WebPagetest are good for diagnosing "why" it's slow.

That said, 10MB of images isn't going to be fast for anybody. It looks like you have a bunch of the product images as png's and that's where the bulk of the issue is coming from. Saving them as JPEG's (which is what they should be since they are photos) should eliminate most of that bloat.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:21 AM
Post: #6
RE: Weird Results?
(12-05-2013 02:57 AM)pmeenan Wrote:  btw, the best way to know how the site is performing for the actual users is to look at some real-user perfomance reporting. Google analytics and SOASTA botha have free offerings. Tools like WebPagetest are good for diagnosing "why" it's slow.

That said, 10MB of images isn't going to be fast for anybody. It looks like you have a bunch of the product images as png's and that's where the bulk of the issue is coming from. Saving them as JPEG's (which is what they should be since they are photos) should eliminate most of that bloat.

Thanks for the both of you for taking a look at my problem.

Regarding about what Pmeenan said : Saving them as JPEG's (which is what they should be since they are photos) should eliminate most of that bloat.

Sounds like a good idea, but how much savings if i convert them into Jpeg?
Changing the extension from .png to .jpg, that means i will not be able to replace all of the files. Will have to start all over again?

cheers,
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:26 AM
Post: #7
RE: Weird Results?
There are 10MB of images that should drop to under 1MB when you compress them correctly so it's VERY worth the effort. It looks like there are also some background png's that are quite huge but only 2-3 color - saving them as palletized png's will save a bunch.

Basically look at every png on the site.

What do you mean by start all over? Technically you could save the jpeg's and keep the file name as png since the browsers all do content sniffing to figure out the image formats but you'd be better off with correct extensions just for your sanity. You should be able to automate the conversion and do it all as a batch.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 03:57 AM by cultdevision.)
Post: #8
RE: Weird Results?
i see… Thanks. Smile any software that can do this : "Technically you could save the jpeg's and keep the file name as png…" ?

My .pngs are optimized already, so i'll save it as .jpg?


-edit- i found Imagemagick can do the trick. http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/basics/#mogrify but I'm not familiar with command line. anybody can chime in here? perhaps Pat?


Cheers,
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:50 AM
Post: #9
RE: Weird Results?
You probably want to reach out to whoever does the dev on the site because you might break things.

I'd probably do it with a shell script but there are command-line utilities on Linux that do a good job of the conversion for individual files.

i.e.

mogrify -format jpg *.png

will create jpeg versions of all the png images in a directory (using default quality settings).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 06:53 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 06:59 AM by iSpeedLink.com.)
Post: #10
RE: Weird Results?
Imagemagick has a steep learning curve.

The easiest (and free) program I know of is Faststone
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

Just view the image, move the cursor to the left hand side of the window and a menu will appear. Click save as (a shorthand key Ctrl-S will take you to this point too) , select jpg, then click options and reduce the compression to 70-75%. While you are in the options window it will show you the compressed result and output size in bytes as you change the compression.

A missing or incorrect IMG WIDTH HEIGHT is considered major. That is why GTmetix emphasizes this factor. The Browser starts with a wire-frame rendering leaving the area for images allocated based on the HTML WIDTH and HEIGHT. when the image is retrieved it is simply render in the allocated area. If the WxH of the HTML do not match the image the Browser then take the time to scale. If there was no HTML WxH it is very likely the Browser is going to have to re-start rendering to fit in the image.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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