Help me to Analyse the Performance and get to the Root cause

[Anton Chigurh]

(05-13-2014 02:47 PM)GreenGecko Wrote:  You:
- state that latency ( and location ) makes no difference
- state that CDNs make at best no difference, and at worst make things worse
- ignore the 9 second delay generating and delivering the html framework
- only concentrate on reducing payload even when savings are provably measurable in fractions of a second on a 17 second page load.

Those are the worst bits of advice you've given... all either outright lies or completely missing the point.

Your focus is only on content - static files - whereas in this case
a) the html framework generation ( so server sizing and tuning issues ) and
b) the delivery ( location and possibly available bandwidth )
are far more where the problem lies.

First of all, NONE of what you list above is ADVICE. It is merely disagreement on your part and apparently lack of even rudimentary reading comprehension.

I have given NO bad advice. I have advised for the OP to take care of the easy and basic tasks FIRST. NOT to ignore other suggestions. "Trim the fat site" is NOT bad advice.

Now, to your list of laments:

I proved here that your example of location making a difference was false, and you ignored the fact that your testing was inherently faulty - since the location nearer you was only loading half the KB of the same page, therefore totally skewing the results and making the example invalid. You seemed to just ignore that little detail. The reality is: LOCATION of the test browser really does NOT make all that much difference.

Quote:(You) state that CDNs make at best no difference, and at worst make things worse

That is completely a falsehood. My statement is that if your site is not optimized, a CDN can't do much for you (true) and if it IS optimized, you don't really need a CDN (also true.)

Quote:(You) ignore the 9 second delay generating and delivering the html framework

Nonsense. Part of the delay IS all the extra fat and baggage in the site itself. My suggestion is to first reduce the baggage and the fat, then see what happens to this delay. I have seen it improved vastly many times, in the dozens of sites i have optimized for people, or have helped them with, just by this simple and basic thing alone.

Quote:(You) only concentrate on reducing payload

Untrue - but I see how you might think that by either not reading well or not comprehending what you read. My suggestions about minimizing the KB footprint as much as possible are coming because that is the first, most basic thing everyone should do when trying to optimize their site. And one of the easiest things they can do.

We've shown the location of the test browser isn't relevant for this case, I've no idea why you continue to harp on it.

The OP has improved his site greatly by slimming it down, I've no idea why you can't see that. He took the one piece of advice I offered, and it helped.

You have your panties in a knot for no apparent reason, since I have not suggested or advised that the OP ignore your suggestions, advice and tips. And I have not attacked your positions or said you gave bad advice.

I am giving very good advice, which works every time it is tried. That you don't like the advice is exclusively your personal problem and if you don't like my posts you are invited to place me on ignore. Instead of helping the OP you're just a nattering nabob of negativism.