Browser caching shows as failed for naked domain

[HQRaja]

clubberz Wrote:That's strange, not sure why it doesn't display a cross or a tick for the html file now.

The cache static column refers to the expiry time set for browser caching (not related to server side page caching) and can help to speed up repeat visits, as the browser will get the version stored in its cache instead of connecting and re-downloading the file from the server. You would need to add the expiry rules to the nginx.conf file and reload the nginx service to have them be applied though.

Not sure either what might be causing that, as according to my knowledge, my server is configured to set the appropriate caching headers for all the files it serves. Though I'm gonna look into it again to make sure that really is the case. Thanks for the suggestion.

clubberz Wrote:It does appear the CDN could potentially be slowing down the site so recommend doing some tests with and without it enabled to see if it's worth it.

Thanks for recommending that. I just tried five tests with CDN and five without it, and here are the average results of some key metrics:

Quote:CDN

First view
Load time: 2.9516
First byte: 0.2438
Start render: 1.0532
Fully loaded: 3.1966

Repeat view
Load time: 1.274
First byte: 0.190
Start render: 0.9318
Fully loaded: 1.274

NO CDN

First view
Load time: 2.7788
First byte: 0.231
Start render: 0.9542
Fully loaded: 3.0004

Repeat view
Load time: 1.4266
First byte: 0.2212
Start render: 0.8536
Fully loaded: 1.4266

DIFFERENCE

First view
Load time: 0.1728
First byte: 0.0128
Start render: 0.099
Fully loaded: 0.1962

Repeat view
Load time: -0.1526
First byte: -0.0312
Start render: 0.0782
Fully loaded: -0.1526

As you can see, using no CDN results in improved first view, while using one favors repeated views. Also, considering how the differences are marginal even when it comes to the first view, I think sticking with the CDN would be a good idea, because of the benefit of serving multiple geographical locations with similar results, and saving on the more expensive server bandwidth cost compared to the CDN bandwidth cost.

Are there any further potential improvements you could suggest?