Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I'm quite surprised how large some major websites homepages are.
This is the total amount downloaded just when opening the homepage.
cnn.com - 845kb
microsoft.com - 470kb
yahoo.com - 235kb
gillette.com (flash) - 3.8Mb
abc.com - 3.4Mb
nbc.com - 1.4Mb
youtube.com - 530kb
Anyone care to add to the list? I'm just trying to justify the size of a site by comparing it to major sites out there. Obviously some of these sites are quite media intensive and wouldn't be much fun at 200kb. Im quite surprised how huge some sites actually are.
To do this I used fiddler. Clear your cache first, go to the site, select all the items in fiddler and under the 'statistics' tab it will show the total.
You shouldn't need another site to justify the size of yours. Just because your site is not as big as, say, nbc.com, does not mean that the size is ok. You should still be trying to make it as small as possible.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Why is that Gartner excludes Elasticsearch and Apache Solr in magic quadrant?
Aren't they enterprise search engines?
This post (opensource Versus Gartner Quadrant)) is very good and shows that the focus of Gartner is mainly on technologies coming out of big blues companies.
Magic quadrant is to help buy a solution, not to help buy a free solution.
Even if nosql is well used, robust, and huge today, Gartner Analyst - Donald-Feinberg does not think it is a quadrant choice for non webapps.
One exception is Redis.
I have participated in a Gartner event, and could say that it's mainly a vendor place. If you have big revenues, you can appear in the quadrant, otherwise forget it! Solr, ElasticSearch are great products even if not appearing in the Quadrant ! ;)
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Why does my website takes so long to load despite Good Yslow score. I am using YSlow and gtmetrix to test the speed of my website. I have scored 91% in Page Speed Grade and 89% in YSlow. But the Page load time: 4.67s which is relatively very slow. I have searched everywhere else with similar issue as mine, and it seems no one has found the solution to this yet.
You have 19 requests, totaling 5.3 seconds. The first one took 4.3 seconds (the HTML) with the remainder being the remaining assets including your JS, CSS and images.
Your performance bottleneck isn't on the front-end, it's in the PHP. You need to investigate that side of things a little further. You need to narrow it down to which piece of code is causing the issue. Perhaps you have some SQL which is taking a long time to load, in which case, try turning them off to confirm this is where your problem lies.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
On a recent project, with roughly 6,000 hours of development, a little over 1,000 hours has gone towards "debugging"/"fixes"... does this sound to be acceptable, high or low??
I also understand that this is a rather dynamic question, while also requesting a rather simply answer, however, I'm just looking for a rough estimate/average based on past project experiences : )
Grateful for any and all input~!!
Pressman (2000) gives 30-40% as the total amount of project time for integration, testing an debugging, so your figures look a little low - but it depends on how you calculate it!
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Save for web feature in Photoshop for image size reduction, would this be the simplest way for a beginner (like myself) to try and save on (some) loading time.
I am using images for my menu buttons, background, header, post page, etc etc
I have only just found this save for web feature and I was wondering does it really help in image size or does it not make that much difference.
Is there any other option?
(website for reference: www.kizzieskorner.com)
PS: if you mark my question down please could you give an explanation why so I know what not to do next time - as I am new to these question forums too!
Any reductions in size will help of course. I would actually recommend looking at other image optimising tools.
If you are on a mac there is ImageOptim which is part of my regular workflow now. There is also an optimiser within CodeKit.
This site has a whole host of others listed too and might give you a bit more information on the subject.
http://devstand.com/apps/compress-images-apps/
Hope this helps
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Which is better, small data size and more server requests, or large data size and fewer requests? Larger data size means longer processing time on ther server. How does this scale out thouh as the number of users and their activity increases?
It is always ideal to get all that you need in as many less calls as you can. If you can get all that you need in one call, definitely do it.
Also it will be very helpful if you can give some insight of what kind of application are we talking about here.