Why Google services (e.g blogger ) faster than Hetzner

JohnMiller92

@bikegremlin said:
Click on a link at a website - wait one second for the new screen/page to load and be shown. That is what I meant. With locally run apps (not web/remote), it is easier to control/achieve.

Hmm. I always thought less delay is better? I see what you mean though, but not sure.

Janevski

@JustPfff
Google's money are bigger, faster and stronger than Hetzner's money.
In comparison, your money and mine as well, are only measurable in sacks of potatoes.
And for them, we are mere communists, who congregate in front of the Low End store, drink beer and talk about life, stuff and other comradery.
And that's why your server is slower than "big data".

willie

OP has not yet given any hint about the most basic issue anyone has asked about, which is ping time to Hetzner from where he or she is.

ITLabs

^^^ 7

deank

OP is from a planet called Earth. That is all we need to know.

Give it 500 years and we will be talking about pings between Earth and Mars.

uptime

OP please deliver!

Ole_Juul

bikegremlin said: it gives visitor an impression that something is happening.

Yeah, like I'm standing at the front counter waiting for someone rummaging around in the back to find something they think I might like to see. Seriously, a 3 second delay for a site is unacceptable and shows lack of respect for viewers.

JustPfff

willie said: Did you compare your backend to a simple static page from the same server? What was the result?

Here is the result txt file VS Nginx-Cache page using ApacheBench from my home connection :-
ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://some.com/simple.txt || ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://some.com/somepage.html

Document Path:          /simple.txt
Document Length:        16024 bytes

Concurrency Level:      100
Time taken for tests:   42.404 seconds
Complete requests:      1000
Failed requests:        0
Total transferred:      16293000 bytes
HTML transferred:       16024000 bytes
Requests per second:    23.58 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       4240.355 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       42.404 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          375.23 [Kbytes/sec] received

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:     1654 2552 390.4   2596    3351
Processing:   844 1511 331.6   1501    6279
Waiting:      844 1511 331.6   1501    6278
Total:       2722 4063 468.4   4170    8455

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%   4170
  66%   4320
  75%   4417
  80%   4463
  90%   4560
  95%   4652
  98%   4713
  99%   4752
 100%   8455 (longest request)
===================================================================

Document Path:          /somepage.html
Document Length:        44887 bytes

Concurrency Level:      100
Time taken for tests:   71.351 seconds
Complete requests:      1000
Failed requests:        0
Total transferred:      45231152 bytes
HTML transferred:       44887000 bytes
Requests per second:    14.02 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       7135.052 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       71.351 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          619.07 [Kbytes/sec] received

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:     1872 2685 612.6   2585    8245
Processing:  1889 4034 1401.2   3602   11352
Waiting:      879 2245 1018.4   1904    7894
Total:       4708 6719 1534.1   6187   15210

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%   6187
  66%   6599
  75%   7025
  80%   7609
  90%   8803
  95%   9960
  98%  11507
  99%  12787
 100%  15210 (longest request)

willie said: OP has not yet given any hint about the most basic issue anyone has asked about, which is ping time to Hetzner from where he or she is

My current current connection is not the main issue , neither the ping delay , I already state it in OP page loading are not the same all the time their is dips between loading the pages (some loads fast and some load slow even I already visit it few seconds ago ) ,

here is ping result from Hetzner ( BTW now I'm using 3G connection , but all time past days I was using 4G connection )

ping 0.0.0.0
PING 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=122 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=86.4 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=120 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=110 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=83.1 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=92.6 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=111 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=119 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=144 ms
64 bytes from 0.0.0.0: icmp_seq=10 ttl=52 time=116 m

uptime

@JustPfff said:

Transfer rate: 375.23 [Kbytes/sec] received 

[....]

Transfer rate: 619.07 [Kbytes/sec] received 

alrighty then ... thanks for that detail.

Anyhoo - that's a fine kettle of fish - would it be possible to do that same analysis for the blogger site you are comparing to?

A simple ping might also be helpful to compare. Maybe also traceroute or mtr.

But it does seem like network to Hetzner may be an issue. I don't know that there is very much Hetzner can do about that - though possibly changing some routes or peering might help - but if you're some significant distance from them, it's a long shot.

The thing is, I'm guessing you chose to use Hetzner because they offer nice specs for little money - not because they have a great network to your specific location. Ammirite?

willie

JustPfff said: Here is the result txt file

Thanks, the transfer speed looks terrible, like what you'd expect from an international connection in the early part of a transfer (since it is a small file). What is the ping time? Where are you geographically, if you are willing to say? If you are outside Europe, you should not expect good speed from a server that is in Europe.

Sofia_K

I've started using Cloudflare Workers in front of my cached pages. The Workers run the WordPress site from Cloudflare's 160+ datacenters (locally) so my cache hit rate went to 98% from normally 70% and the site is loading super fast as Workers run nearest to the site visitor location! @JustPfff you should try it.

sanvit

@Sofia_K said:
I've started using Cloudflare Workers in front of my cached pages. The Workers run the WordPress site from Cloudflare's 160+ datacenters (locally) so my cache hit rate went to 98% from normally 70% and the site is loading super fast as Workers run nearest to the site visitor location! @JustPfff you should try it.

Any tutorials you might want to recommend? Is wordpress running on some backend and Workers are fetching it, or is the full stack running on workers? How much does it costs you (can it be covered by the free tier)?

corbpie

DNS issue? if you go direct via your IP it should be instant load

bikegremlin

@JohnMiller92 said:

@bikegremlin said:
Click on a link at a website - wait one second for the new screen/page to load and be shown. That is what I meant. With locally run apps (not web/remote), it is easier to control/achieve.

Hmm. I always thought less delay is better? I see what you mean though, but not sure.

To be fair, my info is about 2 decades old - things (might have) change(d). When I look at kids with smartphones swiftly scrolling - those brains might be a bit differently wired.

JustPfff

Sofia_K said: I've started using Cloudflare Workers in front of my cached pages. The Workers run the WordPress site from Cloudflare's

Are these pages will be 100% cached or you could execute some dynamic codes . e.g I'm using rating plugin (even it's loaded from admin-ajax.php ) but I can execute wp-admin folder from page ruls , is that possiple with Cloudflare Workers .
Plus my theme uses PHP condetion to detect mobile devices and load diffrent style for it , could I still do that with Cloudflare Workers ! I dont's want to do mobile redirect since it will make site indexing mass (I saw multiple sites Google were index their mobile subdomain instead of the main daomain ) .
BTW I cold find soltion to disply diirent style form mobile using JavaScript but that will make pages more heavy for mobile users (since I'm hiding alot of HTML codes and big pictures )

SpeedBus

Try putting the website behind CloudFlare? That would help cache a bit more of your website as well.