Why doesnt my Firefox/Firebug show me cached images? - firefox

I'm looking at Firebug timeline of pages like www.google.com after page refresh (F5) and ALL the files are loaded with status 200 and no indication of them coming from cache.
In IE and chrome some of the files have status 304 not modified and cache seems to work.
Is there a setting somewhere telling firebug to not take files from cache?
Any other explanation for this?

Found it- my cache was off in about:config

Firebug reports by looking at what is going on at a certain level of the application.
Caching of fresh entities (those that don't need to be revalidated) works by pretending to the higher level that it obtained the resources from the web even when it came from the cache, so that the next highest level doesn't have to care about caching (i.e. abstraction is used).
For this reason, Firebug sometimes reports as 200 cases where there was no request at all, though I have found that it does report 304s.
I'll use Firebug for a quick overview of timings, but for detailed reports on what's actually happening on the network I'd use Fiddler, which sits between the browser and the Internet and hence reports more directly on what actually got sent down the wire.

Related

Firefox incorrectly caches AJAX calls in BFCache ignoring caching headers

We have a page that makes AJAX calls to get a JSON file. The JSON file has a 'max-age=60' header.
On Firefox, the JSON file is incorrectly cached by BFCache beyond the 60 seconds specified by caching header. What is worse is that force-reloading (Shift+F5) doesn't help, as the JSON file is not retrieved from the server anymore.
This is a bug in Firefox, opened one year ago and still unresolved: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1055024
Answers to this question How to force Firefox to bypass BFCache for Angular.JS partials? mention some workarounds that involve clearing the full cache or installing extensions. We have millions of users and it's not practical for us to ask them all to go through these steps.
Also, setting a 'unload' event in the page seems to disable BFCache completely for the page. This is also not an optimum solution for us, because we would like the whole page to benefit from BFCache speedup, and still see fresh JSON content honoring the max-age=60 header.
Does anyone know if there are specific caching headers that will hint BFCache NOT to keep this particular file and fetch it from the server once the max-age period has elapsed?

How firefox fetches correct data from Browser Cache

Once we open a link in a new tab in Firefox, the data corresponding to that web page(static or dynamic) gets stored in Browser Cache. Then, when we switches at that tab again, it extracts data of that page from Cache(not requesting from the server of that site) and paints it at the frame buffer of the screen.
I want to know that how Firefox fetches this data in correct sequence?
What kind of mapping does the Firefox uses to extract the page data from its Cache?
Firefox (like any other browser) uses heuristics to decide when and what to cache. This is assuming no caching information is included in the resources. When no caching information is provided, Firefox might still decide to cache the files for certain period of time.
If you want to avoid Firefox to cache your resources altogether, you must include the following response header on your resources:
Cache-Control:no-cache, no-store
Now, the exact algorithm that Firefox uses to fetch from cache I don't think is public. Maybe somebody from Mozilla is able to answer this.

MVC 3 with IE, poor bundle performance

We have deployed an MVC 3 website on an IIS6 box.
Everything runs fine, but the performance is abysmal.
Can anyone help me understand
why am I getting 20 second response times to get a script bundle?
why bundled scripts are not cached by IE even if the Expires header is set?
The site is several times faster in Chrome (I have noticed the cache behaviour is correct), but we cannot force customers to use it.
Any help would be great. I'm kind of wondering if it's a server-side setting that's forcing the bundle recompilation each request, or if it's just IE acting like usual.
Edit: as per comments request, I'm including also the bundle request headers:
If you have different download times for a full reload between the two browsers it could be that you are doing intense computations with a client side framework like angularjs (I have seen big performance differences from highly complex angularjs apps between the two browsers).
If both your browsers show the same download time, it is either a network issue, or a server issue.
The IE caching could be a separate issue, break your problem into two parts - look for the cause of the slow downloads first.
All I can do now is suggest an approach to finding the issue.
Summary of what you know
It looks like you have:
Server sends an Expires header one year from now
When you reload the page (i.e. you don't force a full refresh using Ctrl+F5)
IE doesn't take any notice of the cache header, and when it sends it's new request it doesn't use If-Modified-Since or If-None-Match
Chrome behaves differently and respects the Expires and/or ETag response headers (it doesn't even make the request again for the bundle).
EDIT 1: You also seem to be saying (though it would be good to see a timeline from chrome) that Chrome downloads the files faster, implying it is not a server-side problem. Your latest comment states that Chrome's downloads are also slow. (end edit)
And you also seem to be saying that this behaviour is consistent (i.e. 100 requests in IE, and 100 requests in Chrome show the above behaviour with no deviations).
Approach
You should break this problem into two parts:
Why is the download so slow?
Is there a server-side performance problem? Look for common download times in IE and Chrome, and Firefox (it could be due to bundling/minification/compression on the server).
Is there a network connectivity issue (dropped packets, for instance)? Look for inconsistent download times, Start times, Request times, between requests in a given browser and the same behaviour across all browsers.
Is a script slowing down IE, but not Chrome (this is not uncommon, I maintain legacy sites where the scripts don't run well in IE but do in Chrome) - look at different profile results between browsers.
Why is the javascript not being cached in IE? Troubleshoot (1) first, then worry about this.
It is possible that the two are related, but approaching them separately will be a start. Number 1 is far easier to diagnose that 2, the top references to caching javascript in IE on the web are to prevent it in order to help with development.
Root cause diagnosis
EDIT 1 The first thing to do is try the site from a browser on the server, or very close to the server to see if you have a network issue. (end edit)
Tools like Fiddler, the browser developer tools, timeline and script profiler, and YSlow are your friend. Compare each of the following between Chrome and IE (and see what happens in Firefox as well) and spot the difference. Note: you may need to clear the browser cache between tests.
browser developer tools -> script profile: see if you have a slow running script in IE compared to Chrome
similar analysis in a tool like YSlow (look for comparisons between the two browsers, not script improvements)
request and response headers, and timeline from a normal (i.e. not full reload) page load
request and response headers, and timeline from a full page reload (Ctrl+F5)
Start and Request durations for every js file for a given browser, and between browsers (this may point to network issues)? I note that the Start and Request alone are taking 0.6s and 1s each in IE - that is very very poor performance.
5 requests, and 5 full reloads with cache clearing between (that is, don't chase a ghost - be consistent in your test methodology)
Download times should be no different between Chrome and IE with no scripts actually running so also add a control test. Assuming that your bundle files don't "do anything" (i.e. they contain functions that the page calls rather than kicking off long processes by themselves) then create a blank page in your site which references exactly the same javascript files - not just the bundle, but every single js reference.
With the control test you can compare pure download times and caching behaviour in IE to Chrome, without any client side javascript running (use the developer tools profiler to verify no scripts are running). If your bundle files do kick off long running things, just temporarily disable those things by putting return statements at the top of the script and concentrate only on the download into the browser.

Chrome caching like a mad browser

I've got a web service that, like most others, uses js and css files. I use the old trick of appending a version number to the js and css file like; ?v=123 and that gets changed every time we update the service on production.
Now, this works fine on all browsers, except for Chrome. Chrome seems to prefer it's cached version over getting the new one and therefor seems to ignore the appended variable. In some cases, forcing it to refresh cache (cmd+r / ctrl+f5) wasn't enough so I had to go into options and clear out the cache for it to load up the new content.
Has anyone experienced this issue with Chrome? And if so, what was the resolution to the problem?
Chrome should certainly treat requests with varying query strings as different requests; a cached result for style.css?v=123 should never be used for style.css?v=124. If you're seeing different behavior, please file a bug at http://new.crbug.com/ and post the bug ID here.
That said, I'd first check to see whether the page was cached longer than you expected. If a new version of the page itself wasn't downloaded, then it would still be requesting ?v=123 as the HTML wouldn't have changed. If you're sending long-lived cache headers with the page, it's certainly possible that Chrome is caching it more aggressively than you expected. If that's the behavior you're seeing, please star http://crbug.com/8742 for updates.
I had also same experience
You can user Ctrl + Shift + R for cache free browsing in both Chrome + Mozilla.
I have had this experience as well.
I run a membership site which displays content such as "You must be logged in as a Gold member in order to see this content" if they are not logged in or are trying to view content not allowed by their membership level. But even if the user is logged in, the user would still see "You need to log in", due to Google Chrome's aggressive caching. In Firefox, however, it works fine as I test logging in and out of all 5 levels of membership - each displaying the proper content.
While Chrome's caching problem can be solved by clearing the cache every time the user logs in and out, it would be really annoying to take that approach.

Google Page Speed Recommendation for Leveraging Browser Caching

Well, I'm trying to optimize my application and currently using page speed for this. One of the strongest recommendations was that I needed to leverage browser caching. The report sent me to this page:
http://code.google.com/intl/pt-BR/speed/page-speed/docs/caching.html#LeverageBrowserCaching
In this page there is this quote:
If the Last-Modified date is
sufficiently far enough in the past,
chances are the browser won't refetch
it.
My point is: it doesn't matter the value I set to the Last-Modified header (I tried 10 years past), when I access and reload my application (always clearing the browser recent history) I get status 200 for the first access, and 304 for the reaming ones.
Is there any way I can get the behavior described in the google documentation? I mean, the browser don't try to fetch the static resources from my site?
You might have better success using the Expires header (also listed on that Google doc link).
Also keep in mind that all of these caching-related headers are hints or suggestions for browsers to follow. Different browsers can behave differently.
The method of testing is a good example. In you case you mentioned getting status 304 for remaining requests, but are you getting those by doing a manual browser refresh? Browsers will usually do a request in that case.

Resources