Current time: 12-16-2018, 06:21 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Looking for even more performance; realistic?
04-26-2017, 11:41 PM
Post: #8
RE: Looking for even more performance; realistic?
(04-24-2017 08:32 PM)clubberz Wrote:  Try testing using the Dulles, Thinkpad location it's closer to the rendering power of modern desktop. I think the Dulles, VA location is a little under-powered.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/170424...view_step1
Thank you very much for this comment! It really helped me to put things into perspective; I was too tied up in using that testing location and considering the webpagetest results as "the truth".

After seeing that test result I've become a bit more sceptical of the webpagetest results (in other words, not relying on it too much) and made a couple of website changes:

- No more hosting of Google analytics locally (like mentioned earlier in this thread).
- No more JS file that's loaded deferred, but load the JS async now (for earlier fetching). (I found that the start render time is really held up by the CSS and HTML itself, not the JS so I might as well load it async without script injection.)
- Removed one JS file and the JSON request.
- Put all CSS in one file that's referenced externally.

I know that latter is not the very best approach, since inlining the CSS would/should give better performance for the first page view. However, when I look at the load time of the CSS file and the small amount of CSS that I'd otherwise defer loaded, I estimate that this costs around 75-100ms of the initial page load.

I could optimize that further, but with that small benefit I'd rather have the CSS external for better browser caching: my pages have a browser cache of 30 minutes, while my CSS is cached in the visitors browser for 6 months.

Here's the Dulles VA Thinkpad result (Chrome, FIOS connection):
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/170426_1E_121B/
And the Dulles VA (Chrome, Cable) result:
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/170426_7Y_129C/

If I'd only look at those webpagetest results, then the performance would still be quite bad (start render time in excess of 1 second for such a lightweight static HTML page). But I can't really match those performances with how the website feels when I browse it myself (with caching disabled in Firefox or Chrome), and I also see that Pingdom puts the same page at a load time of 0.3 seconds:
https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/d9gFBT/http...statement/

My remaining question: Is there an optimisation I have overlooked so far? I'd of course would still like to improve the start render time if that's possible, but I feel that I checked most boxes (that I can influence) even though Webpagetest doesn't agree yet. Smile

(Thanks again for your help Clubberz!)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: Looking for even more performance; realistic? - JMTC - 04-26-2017 11:41 PM

Forum Jump:


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