"Website performance has stayed the same over the past 10 years". Really? I think not. 1 to 2 to 4 second load times where ok 10 years ago for a "fast" site, now we're talking 500 ms.
I still get several-second load times pretty regularly, a few very minimalist sites like HN excepted (though HN can take a few seconds to respond sometimes for what appear to be backend reasons). Admittedly, I have 320 kbps SDSL, so maybe things are better if you've got a multi-Mbit pipe.
I think ten years ago, a typical mainstream media site would take somewhere around 5 to 10 seconds to load on a modem, which is basically what they take to load for me today. Fox News's website takes about 30 seconds to fully load!
Things are a bit better with AdBlock, since it often seems to be third-party ad and analytics servers both holding up the parade with high latency, and pushing big .swfs. But the number of sites that load in 500 ms for me is pretty vanishingly small. It happens, but esp. without Adblock (which I don't always use) by the end of 500ms usually my browser still hasn't even finishing pinging all the servers the page is loading content from, much less actually pulled the content.
Using Polipo (http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/polipo/) as a local caching proxy does seem to help in my case. Not sure why it would do a better job than either Firefox or Chrome, but it seems to cache and pipeline more aggressively.
Interesting - I can't think of a website that has 500 ms page load times. The average is closer to 5 seconds, or 10x 500 ms. Latency may be down, but that's only part of the equation.
Comments
"Website performance has stayed the same over the past 10 years". Really? I think not. 1 to 2 to 4 second load times where ok 10 years ago for a "fast" site, now we're talking 500 ms.
I still get several-second load times pretty regularly, a few very minimalist sites like HN excepted (though HN can take a few seconds to respond sometimes for what appear to be backend reasons). Admittedly, I have 320 kbps SDSL, so maybe things are better if you've got a multi-Mbit pipe.
I think ten years ago, a typical mainstream media site would take somewhere around 5 to 10 seconds to load on a modem, which is basically what they take to load for me today. Fox News's website takes about 30 seconds to fully load!
Things are a bit better with AdBlock, since it often seems to be third-party ad and analytics servers both holding up the parade with high latency, and pushing big .swfs. But the number of sites that load in 500 ms for me is pretty vanishingly small. It happens, but esp. without Adblock (which I don't always use) by the end of 500ms usually my browser still hasn't even finishing pinging all the servers the page is loading content from, much less actually pulled the content.
Using Polipo (http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/polipo/) as a local caching proxy does seem to help in my case. Not sure why it would do a better job than either Firefox or Chrome, but it seems to cache and pipeline more aggressively.
Interesting - I can't think of a website that has 500 ms page load times. The average is closer to 5 seconds, or 10x 500 ms. Latency may be down, but that's only part of the equation.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/06/23/googl...