Site speed

[Ortix]

Hey guys, i've been a long member of BakaBT and i've always been amazed at the speed at which the pages load. Now i do have my own anime website but it is nowhere near as fast as this site... I was wondering what you have done to optimize the loading times? I mean... a site that loads in under a second? That is very rare imo.

Is it the server or just website optimizations?

[tomoya-kun]

Maybe the host is better

[kureshii]

To some extent page-loading speed is dependent on the host, but there are things you can do to optimise it. Yahoo Dev network has a pretty nice guide.

[Jarudin]

We've done loads of stuff:
- Good sever host
- Optimized PHP code
- PHP Caching
- Optimized SQL queries
- Optimized SQL installation
- JS/CSS minification
- CSS sprites
- Optimized images
- faux-CDN implementation

All of these are 'expert' tricks. If you're a novice, I wouldn't recommend doing any of them.

--Jarudin--

[Ortix]

I don't really consider myself a novice anymore. But i haven't gotten that much into optimization. Thanks for the tips guys I'll see what i can do with my website!

[tomoya-kun]

I don't really consider myself a novice anymore. But i haven't gotten that much into optimization. Thanks for the tips guys I'll see what i can do with my website!

Also compress images, people wont notice and it will load a bit faster.

[Soulreaper77]

I don't really consider myself a novice anymore. But i haven't gotten that much into optimization. Thanks for the tips guys I'll see what i can do with my website!

Also compress images, people wont notice and it will load a bit faster.

I think that's a given for about every website that exists. Nobody uses PNG's for their site images.

[tomoya-kun]

I don't really consider myself a novice anymore. But i haven't gotten that much into optimization. Thanks for the tips guys I'll see what i can do with my website!

Also compress images, people wont notice and it will load a bit faster.

I think that's a given for about every website that exists. Nobody uses PNG's for their site images.

Using a slightly smaller (25%) image and

If you really want to save space, downscale the image 25% and then rescale.  It will be smaller without too much quality loss.

[_Jitsu_]

Honestly, I'm an eye-candy maniac. Turns me on.
Wouldn't whine for the extra 500kb, assuming it's really worth it.

On the other hand, page loading time is really a complex topic. Funny thing is that the page load lag doesn't neccessarily have to be network based. Sometimes it can be hardware based, especially with flash and java extensive scripts.

There is lots to be said about this. My best shot would be that if you're using PHP - like a site framework, not a single script - then you should probably read alot about PHP caching. Really helps get the thing done properly.

[tomoya-kun]

Honestly, I'm an eye-candy maniac. Turns me on.
Wouldn't whine for the extra 500kb, assuming it's really worth it.

On the other hand, page loading time is really a complex topic. Funny thing is that the page load lag doesn't neccessarily have to be network based. Sometimes it can be hardware based, especially with flash and java extensive scripts.

There is lots to be said about this. My best shot would be that if you're using PHP - like a site framework, not a single script - then you should probably read alot about PHP caching. Really helps get the thing done properly.

500kb x 200,000 visitors = 100,000 mb, 100GBs of bandwidth (if my math is correct)

[_Jitsu_]

500kb x 200,000 visitors = 100,000 mb, 100GBs of bandwidth (if my math is correct)

Not talking about server bandwidth. That's a totally different story, and yes, your comment is quite accurate. Point taken.
Not many hosters can afford such loss, for the sake of minor tweaks.

//edit

On second though still correct, but it would have to be unique visitors, because of browser caching (not used by all, but still).

[tomoya-kun]

500kb x 200,000 visitors = 100,000 mb, 100GBs of bandwidth (if my math is correct)

Not talking about server bandwidth. That's a totally different story, and yes, your comment is quite accurate. Point taken.
Not many hosters can afford such loss, for the sake of minor tweaks.

//edit

On second though still correct, but it would have to be unique visitors, because of browser caching (not used by all, but still).

Yes, unique visitors of course.  But as a public tracker, I'm sure this site gets a lot of hits.