I was studying about browser performance when loading static files and this doubt has come.
Some people say that use CDN static files (i.e. Google Code, jQuery
latest, AJAX CDN,...) is better for performance, because it requests
from another domain than the whole web page.
Other manner to improve the performance is to set the Expires header
equal to some months later, forcing the browser to cache the static
files and cutting down the requests.
I'm wondering which manner is the best, thinking about performance and
if I may combine both.
Ultimately it is better to employ both techniques if you are doing web performance optimization (WPO) of a site, also known as front-end optimization (FEO). They can work amazingly hand in hand. Although if I had to pick one over the other I'd definitely pick caching any day. In fact I'd say it's imperative that you setup proper resource caching for all web projects even if you are going to use a CDN.
Caching
Setting Expires headers and caching of resources is a must and should be done 100% of the time for your resources. There really is no excuse for not doing caching. On Apache this is super easy to config after enabling mod_expires.c and mod_headers.c. The HTML5 Boilerplate project has good implementation example in the .htaccess file and if your server is something else like nginx, lighttpd or IIS check out these other server configs.
Here's a good read if anyone is interested in learning about caching: Mark Nottingham's Caching Tutorial
Content Delivery Network
You mentioned Google Code, jQuery latest, AJAX CDN and I want to just touch on CDN in general including those you pay for and host your own resources on but the same applies if you are simply using the jquery hosted files cdn or loading something from http://cdnjs.com/ for example.
I would say a CDN is less important than setting server side header caching but a CDN can provide significant performance gains but your content delivery network performance will vary depending on the provider.
This is especially true if your traffic is a worldwide audience and the CDN provider has many worldwide edge/peer locations. It will also reduce your webhosting bandwidth significantly and cpu usage (a bit) since you're offloading some of the work to the CDN to deliver resources.
A CDN can, in some rarer cases, cause a negative impact on performance if the latency of the CDN ends up being slower then your server. Also if you over optimize and employ too much parallelization of resources (using multi subdomains like cdn1, cdn2, cdn3, etc) it is possible to end up slowing down the user experience and cause overhead with extra DNS lookups. A good balance is needed here.
One other negative impact that can happen is if the CDN is down. It has happened, and will happen again. This is more true with free CDN. If the CDN goes down for whatever reason, so does your site. It is yet another potential single point of failure (SPOF). For javascript resources you can get clever and load the resource from the CDN and should it fail, for whatever the case, then detect and load a local copy. Here's an example of loading jQuery from ajax.googleapis.com with a fallback (taken from the HTML5 Boilerplate):
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.2/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/vendor/jquery-1.8.2.min.js"><\/script>')</script>
Besides obvious free API resources out there (jquery, google api, etc) if you're using a CDN you may have to pay a fee for usage so it is going to add to hosting costs. Of course for some CDN you have to even pay extra to get access to certain locations, for example Asian nodes might be additional cost then North America.
For public applications, go for CDN.
Caching helps for repeated requests, but not for the first request.
To ensure fast load on first page visit use a CDN, chances are pretty good that the file is already cached by another site already.
As other have mentioned already CDN results are of course heavily cached too.
However if you have an intranet website you might want to host the files yourself as they typically load faster from an internal source than from a CDN.
You then also have the option to combine several files into one to reduce the number of requests.
A CDN has the benefit of providing multiple servers and automatically routing your traffic to the closest location to your client. This can result in faster delivery, optimized by location.
Also, static content doesn't require special application servers (like dynamic content) so for you to be able to offload it to a CDN means you completely reduce that traffic. A streaming video clip may be too big to cache or should not be cached. But you don't neccessarily want to support that bandwidth. A CDN will take on that traffic for you.
It is not always about the cache. A small application web server may just want to provide the dynamic content but needs a solution for the heavy hitting media that rarely changes. CDNs handle the scaling issue for you.
Agree with #Anthony_Hatzopoulos (+1)
CDN complements Caching; also in some cases, it will help optimize Caching directives.
For example, a company I work for has integrated behavior-learning algorithms into its CDN, to identify and dynamically cache generated objects.
Ordinarily, these objects would be un-Cachable (i.e. [Cache-Control: max-age=0] Http header). But in this case, the system is able to identify Caching possibilities and override original HTTP Header directions. (For example: a dynamically generated popular product that should be Cached, or popular Search result page that, while being generated dynamically, is still presented time over time in the same form to thousands of users).
And yes, before you ask, the system can also identify personalized data and very freshness, to prevent false positives... :)
Implementing such an algorithm was only possible due to a reverse-proxy CDN technology. This is an example of how CDN and Caching can complement each other, to create better and smarter acceleration solutions.
Above those experts quotes, the explanation are perfect to understand CDN tech and also cache
I would just provide my personal experience, I had worked on the joomla virtuemart site and unfortunately it will not allow update new joomla and virtuemart version cause it was too much customised fields in product pages, so once the visitor up to 900/DAY and lots user could not put their items in their basket because each time to called lots js and ajax called for order items takes too much time
After optimise the site, we decide to use CDN, then the performance is really getting good, along by record from gtmetrix, the first YSlow Score was 50% then after optimise + CDN it goes to 74%
https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.florihana.com/jWlY35im
and from dashboard of CDN you could see which datacenter cost most and data charged most to get your improvement of marketing:
But yes to configure CDN it has to be careful of purge time and be balancing numbers of resource CDN cause if it down some problem you need to figure out which resource CDN cause
Hope this does help
Related
I'am trying to cache static files on my server using varnish cache. I configured varnish to cache files with image extensions (.jpg, .png etc.). After that I open my website and debug it with browser developer tools and check load time of all images on my site and there is no difference in load time when I use varnish or not. There is a "HIT" in X-Cache entry in response header so images are available in my cache right? Any idea what can I doing wrong?
Ps. I'm using nginx as a backend server
Varnish shoudln't have a real impact on static files, especially when they're located on a SSD. Very heavy frequented sites may be an exception, particulary when the data is stored on a (slow) HDD. Here you have a huge amout of I/O which can be highly reduced by caching the images in the ram with Varnish. But these might be some special cases where caching of static files make sense. For nginx is also noticeable that this is a very fast webserver which is very good at delivering static files.
The main purpose for Varnish is HTML generated by some server-side backend like PHP, ASP.NET, and other languages which are designed for this task. Compared with serving static files it's very time-sensitive to generate dynamic content: The backend hat to work for example on database-querys which are very common in web-applications today or parsing templates. Wordpress is a widespread CMS and also a good example for this: Several 10k of php-code are executed on a single request and depending on the amout of plugins 100 database-querys and more are no exception.
So there are a lot of things to do for the server - for every request. For you as a site-owner this has the following effects:
The loadtime of the page increases which will result in to problems when its too high:
Visitors are not very patient and they're going to leave your page when they're thinking it's not fast enough. A online-shop which is making $100k per day can be loss up to $2.5 million per year by a delay of 1 second (see https://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/ for more information)
As a result of this its not unexpected that Google is using the loadtime as an indicator for your ranking (see http://www.shoutmeloud.com/google-started-ranking-websites-based-on-load-time-and-speed.html)
Depending on the amount of visitors it can cost you money for more or more powerfull servers
Varnish can store the HTML generated by a backend in the RAM or on a hard drive. Especially with a SSD the latter make sense. Depending of the structure and use of your site, Varnish will at least improve the speed of your page and maybe also save money because less (powerfull) servers will do the job.
When Varnish is used as fronted for dynamic-generated content, you'll notice a noticeable difference. Depending of the application even a big difference. I configured varnish for a vBulletin based forum and could improve the page load time about 5 times.
Summarizing you should focus on caching dynamic pages instead of static stuff like images or clientscript because in most cases the webserver is already good enough to deliver those things. When static content is really slow, this can probably improved by using a CDN. Or maybe your webserver is not well configured for optimal speed. Perhaps there is no lifetime defined for images as example. This can have a negative impact on performance, especially on larger ones. But without further about your application and configuration its not possible to investigate the performance-issue and give concret tipps how this can be enhanced.
We're currently doing optimizations to our web project when our lead told us to push the use of CDNs for external libraries as opposed to including them into a compile+compress process and shipping them off a cache-enabled nginx setup.
His assumption is that if the user has visits example.com which uses a CDN'ed version of jQuery, the jQuery is cached that time. If the user happens to visit example2.com and happen to use the same CDN'ed jQuery, the jQuery will be loaded from cache instead of over the network.
So my question is: Do domains actually share their cache?
I argued that even if it is possible the browser does share cache, the problem is that we are running on the assumption that the previous sites use the same exact CDN'ed file from the same exact CDN. What are the chances of running into a user browsing through a site using the same CDN'ed file? He said to use the largest CDN to increase chances.
So the follow-up question would be: If the browser does share cache, is it worth the hassle to optimize based on his assumption?
I have looked up topics about CDNs and I have found nothing about this "shared domain cache" or CDNs being used this way.
Well your lead is right this is basic HTTP.
All you are doing is indicating to the client where it can find the file.
The client then handles sending a request to the CDN in compliance with their caching rules.
But you shouldn't over-use CDNs for libraries either, keep in mind that if you need a specific version of the library, especially older ones, you won't be likely to get much cache hits because of version fragmentation.
For widely used and heavy libraries like jQuery you want the latest version of it is recommended.
If you can take them all from the same CDN all the better (ie: Google's) especially as http2 is coming.
Additionally they save you bandwidth, which can amount to a lot when you have high loads of traffic, and can reduce the load time for users far from your server (Google's is great for this).
Is loading fonts via storing them on your server and using #font-face slower than loading them from Google's font API? Or does it always depend on the font and vary from situation to situation?
And the same for Javascript and other similar files: is it faster or slower to load from CDN's than to store the files on your server and load them (locally on the server)?
Or are there too many variables involved from situation to situation to generalize to a single answer? I would imagine that it depends on which CDN you're accessing and/or your personal server settings and the size/nature of the files you're loading, etc, but I was just curious if there might be a general rule or strategy to knowing which is faster?
A CDN might be faster, on the base that it is built with speed in mind (high performance, tuned web servers, good caching...) and it is usually composed by a network of geographically distributed servers, lowering latence both because they are nearer and because they share the load. Also, they could be directly placed on backbones, which allow for much faster transfer rates than a low-to-mid-priced server will ever do.
Thus said, for a low traffic website mostly visited from one specific country, in turn near to the server location, the difference in load is irrelevant.
The reason for using Google or jQuery CDN is both saving bandwidth (if the respective owner allows you to use theirs, of course) on your server and be sure you do not miss urgent patches, as they will push fixed versions on the CDN as soon as possible, while you have to get notified, download the new version, then load it on your server (although I guess that this is not a great issues in modern, sanboxed browsers).
I have recently been working on improving the front end performance of our website and have been employing a number of best practices.
However I have had a recent example where some of the practices are slightly at odds with each other
Minimise HTTP requests
In order to "trick" the browser into making more concurrent requests have some assets served from a different domain
Leverage browser caching
Why?
We used to bundle almost all of our Javascript into one file to minimise HTTP requests. This included JQuery and JQuery UI.
I thought this was silly as many users are likely to have JQuery already cached in their browser so I decided we should remove it from our all.js and instead serve it from Google's CDN. This would save users downloading the code again and because it's on a different domain it can be downloaded in parallell with other resources from our own domains.
The concurrent downloading is shown in the graph below:
This of course has raised the number of requests for people without JQuery already cached which isn't great though.
So my question is this:
Is the change a sensible one? Do the benefits of leveraging caching and allowing concurrent requests outweigh a slight increase in the number of requests?
That is a very good question.
You have explained your reasoning well and they are all good reasons for making this change.
But there still remains benefits to both approaches.
Keeping everything combined in one file
Reduce number of HTTP requests, reduces the negative effects of round-trip latency on the user's connection.
All libraries/plugins are downloaded at once, and should remain cached for when they are later needed.
Reduce dependency on other services (although, Google is going to be quite reliable).
Separate files spread across domains
Increase parallelisation of downloads, reduces the negative effects of bandwidth shaping on the user's connection. (Note that most browsers don't limit concurrent per-domain requests to 2 anymore though.)
Increase granularity - separate parts can be downloaded on-demand as needed, ie if a particular plugin is not needed on the first page hit, it isn't downloaded.
Personally, I'd normally lean a little bit towards the former (reducing HTTP requests by combining them into one big file). I feel like most of my audience is going to be on a fairly high-bandwidth connection and I can reduce latency. Remember to use Google and Yahoo's page speed tools to find other ways of speeding things up.
Is there an advantage of some sort (speed or performance wise) to embed your CSS and JS into your web page, as opposed to keeping the code in sparate files? I was raised to believe that keeping code separate in separate files makes things easier to maintain. However, on high profile websites like amazon or google even facebook, I see a lot of embed code. Is there a performance reason they choose to do so or is it just an old/new way of doing things. I suppose my question is similar to this one: Should I inline CSS & JS in mobile sites to save bandwidth?
But I would like to hear form experts, most notably from people who worked on high profile web sties and have done so, if any.
P.S.
Bonus Question: Last html comment on amazon web pages is <!-- MEOW --> does it mean anything or is it just a funny prank?
There are good reasons to inline resources, but as with most things, it also has its tradeoffs. The simplest case for inlining is cases where the cost of an HTTP connection is much more than the resource itself, ex: if you have a 10x10 icon you need to show, a dedicated request for that may not be worth it vs. inlining the data via a data URI.
This is especially true when and if you have many small resources that need to be fetchd. Most browsers limit themselves to a max of 6 connections per host, so if you have 60 resources which need to be fetched, then you'll be blocked for a significant chunk of time.
To work around these case we've invented other workarounds: domain sharding to go over the 6 connection limit, and "spriting" to fetch one resource vs multiple.
If you take a look at mod_pagespeed (Apache module), which does many of these optimizations on the fly for you, then the recommended setting we provide is to inline any resource that's below 2kb. That's a pretty good rule of thumb for today's stack.
Once SPDY is more widely deployed, many of these workarounds can be eliminated: no need to do domain sharding, cost of extra requests is much less, etc.
Stoyan did an experiment that you might find interesting http://www.phpied.com/style-tag-to-inline-style-attrrib/
CSS/JS external files typically get cached on the user's hard drive under that users browser's profile. So unless you change the code frequently, you won't really be doing yourself a favor by putting it inline.
Definitely saves you time from maintenance, but you can easily call in a javascript/css file and embed the code on the page you're populating on the server side, but that also means you're making your server do additional work.
As for the MEOW - yeah, them trying to be funny, or it's code... for... cat...