I heard about cloudflare 5 min ago and it seems really good. I read that they can hold my website online even if my server is offline, so I guess they are caching my site.
So I am very new to web-development but I think my visitors will hit the cloudflare servers instead of my server. Is this correct?
(I am talking about newspages that are the same of everyone, not user specific dynamic content)
So I guess I wouldn't have to cache those "static" sites anymore?
What Cloud Flare Provides Is Just a picture of your website and some pages may not be available at the time your server is offline, and it's very similar to what Google does.
In fact CloudFlare can cache everything on your website. You'd have to force it by creating a 'Cache-everything' PageRule. For mostly static sites it's actually a quite a good idea.
Look up here for more details:
http://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-pagerules-advanced-caching
Related
I've just added a CDN distribution using Amazon Cloudfront to my Rails application on Heroku, it's working OK.
My homepage serves around 11 static assets, I've made some tests using http://www.webpagetest.org/ and there are no differences (in terms of performance, optimizing load times) between using the CDN or not.
Is there any particular reason why this could be happening?
My region is Latin America btw, so it's using the All locations edge option.
Thanks.
The main benefits of using CDN from Amazon or others is that they are hosted on fast and reliable servers and offload the traffic served directly from your server, which in case that you have a dedicated fast server you won't see a considerable boost.
But another benefit is that they are potentially cached by user's browser (due to visiting other websites which have used the same CDN) so the visitor will have a better experience first time they visit your site.
A couple of suggestinos.
If the site CSS is one of the static assets that you have moved to CloudFront then I would try moving it back to your main server.
Since page display can't start until the site CSS is downloaded, you want to serve this as fast as possible. If it's coming from a CDN then it requires a second HTTP request.
Also, use the waterfall display from webpagetest.org to pinpoint where the bottlenecks are.
Good luck!
I have a few sites which are exhibiting a slow load time. All are WordPress 3.5. All are hosted through BlueHost. All are developed by me (built as child-themes of existing WP themes).
Using Safari Developer tools, I see that they average 4–6 seconds (not ms) of latency before anything happens, which appears to be abnormally high. I've tried to wrap my head around latency, and I know I'm not the only one to ask about it here ... but I cannot figure out if the primary culprit is my hosting provider (Bluehost) or with my development.
Here are a couple of my sites with issues:
http://www.HubbardProductions.com
http://www.xla.com
Can anyone point me in the right direction? What can I do to reduce the latency?
you can see from here. your website is responding lately. http://i.imgur.com/VIVoq.png
http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/jyKI0Kv01/http://hubbardproductions.com/
Chris, same problem here. Also with Bluehost + Wordpress 3.5.
Some minutes ago, my sites even went down, and I was unable even to access cPanel. I received the following error:
Auth failed69.89.31.120:2083 is temporarily down.
I contacted the technical staff and they told me to try again, deleting cookies, and also sent me this url:
https://my.bluehost.com/cgi/help/481
Which, in my case, is of little help, but perhaps it can help you.
I asked them if there was any problem with the servers lately and they said nope, no issues.
So, to answer your question, I would:
Wait a few days, in case it is temporary (I hope).
If not, I would run some tests with simple html pages, then php, then php + simple SQL, etc., to find the bottleneck, and if it is a server issue or a wordpress issue.
If I find it is a server issue, I would complain.
If everything fails, I would move my sites to other hosting. Bye-bye Bluehost. :(
Good luck!
I have seen some general questions regarding speed of SSL, but most answers are generic and ask for specifics to give a better answer.
Well, here are my specifics, i really hope someone can help me with some advice what to do.
Question:
I would prefer to keep SSL on throughout the site, instead of only at default Magento SSL behavior such as logging in, account edits, orders and payments. So basically, also during product browsing, reading CMS pages, etc.
But at what performance cost will this be. I'm only worried about actual performance a user may notice.
I'm running a Magento multistore site on a dedicated server with 4GB memory and dualcore processor with gigabit internet connectivity, running Centos 5 and latest LAMP versions. I run a Comodo SSL multidomain Extended Validation (the 'green bar').
Ask me for any details that are relevant to make a better advice :-)
In short, the answer is you will most definitely see a performance hit. This is why Magento was built the way it was. Secure the pages the have private content, and leave the rest open.
Each HTTPS request made using HTTPS, the client and server must deal with verifying the certificate, passing keys, encrypting and decrypting the data. This adds quite an overhead to apache and the OS. You will also loose the efficiencies of local caching of static content, such as stylesheets, javascript pages, images, etc.
As a result, the client will see a increase in load times, Google will ding you for a slow website, conversion will most likely decrease, and possibly other unforeseen consequences.
Here's a conversation from Magentocommerce about constant HTTPS: magentocommerce
In the end, it's not a great idea. Magento does a very good job knowing which pages should be secure and which are fine without.
But, if you MUST, it is possible. Watch your conversion and analytics numbers closely. If you have Google Analytics installed, add page_speed _trackPageLoadTime to your site. Then, at least, you will know what the dammage is.
I have been using Amazon CloudFront for a while now as a cache and edge location for my css, js, image files. I am now thinking about using it for hosting all of my static html files as well. In essence my www.example.com and example.com will be hosted via CloudFront and I will use a separate tomcat server at my.example.com for all the dynamic stuff.
Any feedback about this? Suggestions?
Thanks,
Assaf
This is exactly what CloudFront is designed for. I think you will find this approach is typical of many high traffic web sites.
The only downside is added cost...
I used cloudfront for some time, but recently switched to Google Page Speed Service. It is a little light on features currently, but it deals with edge locations and all the tricks required to speed up you page.
It is currently in beta, but I've had no problems over the 2 months I've been using it. The only question is how much it'll cost when it leaves beta.
Through my job, I can get cheap wimax but there’d be a bandwidth limit of 200MB/month
I often work on personal programming projects on the train to work. For this, I generally don’t need web access and even when I do need access; it’s usually for pages I’ve already visited.
Is there a way to cache my web visits in a way that’s relatively transparent. I’m thinking a caching proxy.
I want to be able to tell it:
Cache everything from https://developer.mozilla.org (would be nice if they provided downloadable docs)
Don’t cache google
Cache javascript, css, and images from gmail and facebook (perhaps updating once a week)
Block youtube altogether (bandwidth hog)
Thoughts?
Does Squid Cache fit your bill?
http://www.squid-cache.org/