New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Load Time For Server For Website
Hey guys I was wondering if you could tell me how the load time is on my new website: http://206.253.167.119/
I can't decide if I want to use a CDN or not. I have it running on cherokee just because it looks interesting and something new.
Comments
Not sure why you would consider a CDN for a hosting website.
Loads pretty much instantly here. I'm also getting about 33ms to your server.
So the website loads fast? Would you buy from a website that is sloooow or fast?
Sweet not bad. You must be REAL close to it
http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/BfrI1gR0D/http://206.253.167.119
https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/ Also nice to run a site through.
It's fast enough. Like I stated, it's a hosting website. By all means, load all the images off your network. How would that help you with sales?
"Wow, your website is super fast. Your network must be fast because it loads fast for me."
"We use a CDN for our images and scripts. It helps to alleviate the high load on our servers due to the concurrent users online at this time (2)."
Actually yea. Some people are just not smart.
Why not just consolidate the JS + CSS, so you can save a few requests.
I need to do it with my images too. I need to do a lot of consolidation.
Might as well minify + compress.
I was looking and I realized I can remove about 18 requests. But im not sure if that is really necessary in my case since I have image cache enabled. The second time my page is loaded it only does 4 requests.
That's fine and dandy, but the purpose of your website is to impress new customers, who have never been to your site before, and therefore won't have anything cached.
Hmm good point. So I think it would be beneficial to minify.
laptop@laptop:~$ traceroute 206.253.167.119
traceroute to 206.253.167.119 (206.253.167.119), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 4.368 ms 4.738 ms 5.119 ms
2 * * *
3 x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x) 16.381 ms 15.811 ms 21.874 ms
4 x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x) 19.546 ms 20.665 ms 21.054 ms
5 te-4-3.car2.Detroit1.Level3.net (4.53.74.101) 103.933 ms 104.791 ms 105.250 ms
6 ae-11-11.car1.Detroit1.Level3.net (4.69.133.245) 26.346 ms 18.649 ms 17.935 ms
7 ae-8-8.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.69.133.242) 19.310 ms 30.586 ms 31.413 ms
8 ae-3-3.ebr2.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.74) 47.241 ms 48.067 ms 48.461 ms
9 ae-1-100.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.33) 51.358 ms 51.781 ms 49.566 ms
10 ae-4-4.car1.Charlotte1.Level3.net (4.69.132.161) 52.029 ms 52.927 ms 52.295 ms
11 ae-11-11.car2.Charlotte1.Level3.net (4.69.132.166) 55.416 ms 53.595 ms 52.880 ms
12 CAROLINA-IN.car2.Charlotte1.Level3.net (4.71.126.30) 39.434 ms 41.184 ms 40.493 ms
13 hostigation.caro.net (174.34.252.178) 40.820 ms 38.630 ms 39.426 ms
14 ovz02.hostigation.com (69.85.89.19) 43.184 ms 42.050 ms 39.870 ms
15 206.253.167.119 (206.253.167.119) 40.694 ms 45.156 ms 44.528 ms
So, your website is hosted at Hostigation.....
Yup.... current we use shared and I dont like it. And Ive gotten a few LEB and his so far has had the best uptime and national ping.
@PytoHost
Try pinging 67.211.172.50 and see if the latency is any better.
DC is http://cisp.com/
Home Connection (PA)
Hostigation IP: Avg: 43.807
CISP IP: Avg: 54.573
PNap
Hostigation IP: Avg: 46.445
CISP IP: Avg: 55.835
WebNX
Hostigation IP: Avg: 57.111
CISP IP: Avg: 65.461
S4Y USA
Hostigation IP: Avg: 31.370
CISP IP: Avg: 14.318
@Derek
I live around 30 miles from caro.net
30 miles and you have 21ms ????
I live roughly 518 miles away according to google maps and I get around 43.807ms
~4ms between my laptop and modem, and most of the rest is in between my house and my isp. the ping between one of my hostigation VPSs and the first hop outside my house is 2ms.
I'm a big Load Impact fan. It hits hard and tends to not give flattering results, so it challenges me. I'm not going to DDOS you with it, but give it a try
Personally I have not found that your average CDN has any positive impact on a light, static site. I would be more concerned about CDN if you had customers at great distance who were really getting bad results.
Never heard of it so I gave it a try. I'm impressed with my results.
http://loadimpact.com/load-test/206.253.167.119-07621cc9191d33e90a7852cc7bcf9f51
I actually really like that website it is nice.
+1 to loadimpact
If only it wasnt soooo expensive. Or they had cheaper packages.
So I ran it on my current web server: it is shared and running litespeed. I must say pretty bad results for all the hype surrounding litespeed.
http://loadimpact.com/load-test/pytohost.com-59e2f7187c37753d32769806b69a2c1d
Then I ran it on my new VPS web server. And I must say Cherokee won by leaps and bounds. I am pleasantly surprised.
http://loadimpact.com/load-test/206.253.167.119-2ecfe89afacaf4708da35db4950adbe4
Yes. Thankfully it has free tests
With Firefox: (measured with Firebug)
34 requests
388.1 KB (372 KB from cache)
2.61s (onload: 2.67s)
What is the company provides CDN?
But have you tried nginx?