On 06/08/2016 07:11 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Some of the graphics there (png, jpeg) also seem to be large. One takes 0.6S to download or to serve.
OUCH and DOUBLE OUCH. You said earlier that it was a server problem. In view of this I'd say "yes, but...' if a browser has to resize a image to fir the specified dimensions or otherwise fit the image in a bounding box, that takes time and computation on the part of the browser. You can quite reasonably say this is a server error. If the page designer had resized the image to the required dimensions in the first place, it would be smaller, quicker to download, and would not need resizing by the browser. You can view this as a class of possible server errors that I've seen: - error ridden HTML that the browser has to figure out the best it can do with it, try to make some sense of it - error ridden or massive or massively redundant CSS, multiple definitions, multiple files that the browser has to download and parse. Again an error on the part of the designer. - As above but for JavaScript or other mobile code. - useless eye-candy that consumes browser and CPU power to little effect I will grant you that some site, Wikipedia is one, are very heavy handed on the CSS and JavaScript. But it is worth noting that they have a separate server for those. The browser can parse the <HEAD> of the page and start downloading in parallel from that other server and while it may eat the end user's bandwidth it does not add load to the HTML server. If graphics, css or JavaScript add a significant amount of traffic this parallelism, which is quite different from the parallelism of it being done by one Apache server on one host, can be put to very good use. IIR Wikipedia and others publish statistics and an analysis about this. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org