posted by JCooper on Wed 30th Jan 2008 10:25
Conversations I hated, a strong word I know, the "new" v4 layout, colours and design.

This new .1 look is awesome and really brings osnews into 2008.

Thank you for your continued hard work and efforts ;)
Permalink for comment 600
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Thu 31st Jan 2008 14:03 UTC
Member since:

loads in about 3 seconds here (4Mbit connection). Maybe you should use a computer instead of a printer to view OSNews !

What's your ping time to OSNews?

I'm averaging 114ms here, which with at LEAST two pings per file on first load, that's a minimum overhead on the OSNews main page of 14.952 seconds, a real world actual of 21.88 seconds. Once it's cached it's a LITTLE better coming in at about 4 seconds overhead... WITHOUT EVEN TALKING about filesizes.

It's called a handshake - to be getting a 3 second pageload you're cache probably isn't verifying files for changes (status code 304), AND you are likely having ping times around 30ms... which is three times what the average DSL user sees.

It's actually one of the biggest causes of slow loading/painful to watch pages, and the least discussed or understood by web developers. When the browser requests a file it has to send the request, receive back that the file is available, THEN acknowledge to start sending. Due to overlap and the ability to start another request while listening to the first this can reduce it to about 1.5 times the ping time total, if server connection limits are maxed out or local connection limits (like XP SP2's little 'connection limit reduction) are maxed, you can see up to three times the ping time overhead PER FILE

If nothing else, it makes it painful to watch all those images tick by, especially in browsers like firefux with their piss poor handshaking and caching models.

ReplyParent Score: 1