Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Load Time For Server For Website
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Load Time For Server For Website

SpencerSpencer Member
edited May 2012 in General

Hey guys I was wondering if you could tell me how the load time is on my new website: http://206.253.167.119/
I can't decide if I want to use a CDN or not. I have it running on cherokee just because it looks interesting and something new.

«1

Comments

  • specklspeckl Member

    Not sure why you would consider a CDN for a hosting website.

  • KairusKairus Member

    Loads pretty much instantly here. I'm also getting about 33ms to your server.

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @speckl said: Not sure why you would consider a CDN for a hosting website.

    So the website loads fast? Would you buy from a website that is sloooow or fast?

    @Kairus said: Loads pretty much instantly here. I'm also getting about 33ms to your server.

    Sweet not bad. You must be REAL close to it

  • KairusKairus Member

    https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/ Also nice to run a site through.

    Thanked by 1Spirit
  • specklspeckl Member

    It's fast enough. Like I stated, it's a hosting website. By all means, load all the images off your network. How would that help you with sales?

    "Wow, your website is super fast. Your network must be fast because it loads fast for me."

    "We use a CDN for our images and scripts. It helps to alleviate the high load on our servers due to the concurrent users online at this time (2)."

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @speckl said: "Wow, your website is super fast. Your network must be fast because it loads fast for me."

    Actually yea. Some people are just not smart.

  • debugdebug Member

    Why not just consolidate the JS + CSS, so you can save a few requests.

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @debug said: Why not just consolidate the JS + CSS, so you can save a few requests.

    I need to do it with my images too. I need to do a lot of consolidation.

  • KairusKairus Member

    Might as well minify + compress.

  • SpencerSpencer Member
    edited May 2012

    @Kairus said: Might as well minify + compress.

    I was looking and I realized I can remove about 18 requests. But im not sure if that is really necessary in my case since I have image cache enabled. The second time my page is loaded it only does 4 requests.

  • NickMNickM Member

    That's fine and dandy, but the purpose of your website is to impress new customers, who have never been to your site before, and therefore won't have anything cached.

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @NickM said: That's fine and dandy, but the purpose of your website is to impress new customers, who have never been to your site before, and therefore won't have anything cached.

    Hmm good point. So I think it would be beneficial to minify.

  • DerekDerek Member

    laptop@laptop:~$ traceroute 206.253.167.119
    traceroute to 206.253.167.119 (206.253.167.119), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 4.368 ms 4.738 ms 5.119 ms
    2 * * *
    3 x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x) 16.381 ms 15.811 ms 21.874 ms
    4 x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x) 19.546 ms 20.665 ms 21.054 ms
    5 te-4-3.car2.Detroit1.Level3.net (4.53.74.101) 103.933 ms 104.791 ms 105.250 ms
    6 ae-11-11.car1.Detroit1.Level3.net (4.69.133.245) 26.346 ms 18.649 ms 17.935 ms
    7 ae-8-8.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.69.133.242) 19.310 ms 30.586 ms 31.413 ms
    8 ae-3-3.ebr2.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.74) 47.241 ms 48.067 ms 48.461 ms
    9 ae-1-100.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.33) 51.358 ms 51.781 ms 49.566 ms
    10 ae-4-4.car1.Charlotte1.Level3.net (4.69.132.161) 52.029 ms 52.927 ms 52.295 ms
    11 ae-11-11.car2.Charlotte1.Level3.net (4.69.132.166) 55.416 ms 53.595 ms 52.880 ms
    12 CAROLINA-IN.car2.Charlotte1.Level3.net (4.71.126.30) 39.434 ms 41.184 ms 40.493 ms
    13 hostigation.caro.net (174.34.252.178) 40.820 ms 38.630 ms 39.426 ms
    14 ovz02.hostigation.com (69.85.89.19) 43.184 ms 42.050 ms 39.870 ms
    15 206.253.167.119 (206.253.167.119) 40.694 ms 45.156 ms 44.528 ms

    So, your website is hosted at Hostigation.....

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @Derek said: So, your website is hosted at Hostigation.....

    Yup.... current we use shared and I dont like it. And Ive gotten a few LEB and his so far has had the best uptime and national ping.

  • DerekDerek Member

    @PytoHost

    Try pinging 67.211.172.50 and see if the latency is any better.

    DC is http://cisp.com/

    Thanked by 1debug
  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @Derek said: Try pinging 67.211.172.50 and see if the latency is any better.

    Home Connection (PA)
    Hostigation IP: Avg: 43.807
    CISP IP: Avg: 54.573

    PNap
    Hostigation IP: Avg: 46.445
    CISP IP: Avg: 55.835

    WebNX
    Hostigation IP: Avg: 57.111
    CISP IP: Avg: 65.461

    S4Y USA
    Hostigation IP: Avg: 31.370
    CISP IP: Avg: 14.318

  • @Derek

    bash-3.2$ ping 67.211.172.50
    PING 67.211.172.50 (67.211.172.50): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 67.211.172.50: icmp_seq=0 ttl=117 time=53.680 ms
    64 bytes from 67.211.172.50: icmp_seq=1 ttl=117 time=77.655 ms
    64 bytes from 67.211.172.50: icmp_seq=2 ttl=117 time=45.900 ms
    64 bytes from 67.211.172.50: icmp_seq=3 ttl=117 time=50.849 ms
    ^C
    --- 67.211.172.50 ping statistics ---
    4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 45.900/57.021/77.655/12.234 ms
    bash-3.2$ ping tiger
    PING tiger.d3vm.net (69.85.88.4): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 69.85.88.4: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=23.148 ms
    64 bytes from 69.85.88.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=24.103 ms
    64 bytes from 69.85.88.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=21.417 ms
    64 bytes from 69.85.88.4: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=22.923 ms
    ^C
    --- tiger.d3vm.net ping statistics ---
    4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 21.417/22.898/24.103/0.963 ms

    I live around 30 miles from caro.net

  • DerekDerek Member

    @dmmcintyre3 said: I live around 30 miles from caro.net

    30 miles and you have 21ms ????

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @Derek said: 30 miles and you have 21ms ????

    I live roughly 518 miles away according to google maps and I get around 43.807ms

  • dmmcintyre3dmmcintyre3 Member
    edited May 2012

    @Derek said: 30 miles and you have 21ms ????

    ~4ms between my laptop and modem, and most of the rest is in between my house and my isp. the ping between one of my hostigation VPSs and the first hop outside my house is 2ms.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    I'm a big Load Impact fan. It hits hard and tends to not give flattering results, so it challenges me. I'm not going to DDOS you with it, but give it a try ;)

    Personally I have not found that your average CDN has any positive impact on a light, static site. I would be more concerned about CDN if you had customers at great distance who were really getting bad results.

  • SpencerSpencer Member
    edited May 2012

    @jarland said: I'm a big Load Impact fan.

    Never heard of it so I gave it a try. I'm impressed with my results.
    http://loadimpact.com/load-test/206.253.167.119-07621cc9191d33e90a7852cc7bcf9f51

    I actually really like that website it is nice.

  • yomeroyomero Member

    +1 to loadimpact

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    @yomero said: +1 to loadimpact

    If only it wasnt soooo expensive. Or they had cheaper packages.

  • SpencerSpencer Member

    So I ran it on my current web server: it is shared and running litespeed. I must say pretty bad results for all the hype surrounding litespeed.
    http://loadimpact.com/load-test/pytohost.com-59e2f7187c37753d32769806b69a2c1d

    Then I ran it on my new VPS web server. And I must say Cherokee won by leaps and bounds. I am pleasantly surprised.
    http://loadimpact.com/load-test/206.253.167.119-2ecfe89afacaf4708da35db4950adbe4

  • yomeroyomero Member

    @PytoHost said: If only it wasnt soooo expensive. Or they had cheaper packages.

    Yes. Thankfully it has free tests

  • With Firefox: (measured with Firebug)

    34 requests
    388.1 KB (372 KB from cache)
    2.61s (onload: 2.67s)

  • @speckl said: "We use a CDN for our images and scripts. It helps to alleviate the high load on our servers due to the concurrent users online at this time (2)."

    What is the company provides CDN?

  • @PytoHost said: Then I ran it on my new VPS web server. And I must say Cherokee won by leaps and bounds. I am pleasantly surprised.

    But have you tried nginx?

Sign In or Register to comment.