WebPagetest Forums
Going https resulted in all n/a - Printable Version

+- WebPagetest Forums (https://www.webpagetest.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Web Performance (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discuss Test Results (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Going https resulted in all n/a (/showthread.php?tid=13703)



Going https resulted in all n/a - pming - 05-04-2015 07:40 PM

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150504_63_FG1/

When it was http, it worked.


RE: Going https resulted in all n/a - dfavor - 05-10-2015 02:12 AM

CloudFare produces all manner of errors + problems.

Well tuned servers almost always slow down when using CDNs.

First, strip all CDN access out of your site + get it working.

Then, if you really come up with a problem that WPT surfaces that can be fixed with a CDN, use one.

Otherwise, don't believe anyone who tells you a CDN is required.

CloudFare use appears to be what's interfering with WPT.


RE: Going https resulted in all n/a - pming - 05-12-2015 06:32 PM

Just Cloudflare CDN works with WPT.

The all n/a problem only occurred when Cloudflare SSL was activated.

About CDN not being required, since WPT also includes "Effective Use of CDN", it's difficult to believe when someone says CDN isn't required.


RE: Going https resulted in all n/a - dfavor - 09-02-2015 11:17 PM

CDNs are rarely required for correctly tuned sites.

CDNs will, many times, slow down well tuned sites.

If you use a hosting company (I use OVH), which sits servers on the same global backbone as most CDNs, then the only benefit of a CDN (for well tuned sites), is slightly faster (sub millisecond) connection time for first connection.

After the first connection, well tuned sites will arrange for all site objects (images, css, js, etc) to be cached in the the visitors browser.

If you really dig into WPT test reports you will notice almost always, slowest objects are loading off CDNs, so rule of thumb is never believe anyone - CDN marketing hype or any expert (me included).

Rather test it yourself.

The truth is in the testing.


RE: Going https resulted in all n/a - pmeenan - 09-03-2015 10:18 PM

+1 for testing but there are a lot of cases where a (good) CDN makes a huge difference, particularly if you have a global audience.

If all of your static content can be cached in the browser cache and the majority of your traffic is repeat traffic then sure, there will be minimal benefit.

If, on the other hand, you get new traffic (links from search, social media, whatever) then a CDN can make a world of difference in performance for delivering those static assets.

They aren't really needed for every site which is why the CDN check on WPT doesn't give it a grade or a color - just a yes/no on if a CDN is being used.


RE: Going https resulted in all n/a - WebsiteSpeedExperts - 09-04-2015 01:02 AM

The main benefit of a CDN for larger, more trafficked sites isn't really the web page improvements, but rather the offloading of requests for static resources. If your main site isn't being hit for the same JS file, then it can handle more "real" work requests like requests for new page loads.

Up until your sites gets to a certain point, most people don't need one and they just add complexity to deployments without no real benefit most of the time.


RE: Going https resulted in all n/a - dfavor - 09-04-2015 11:28 PM

+1 on CDN complexity.

I'm hosting sites doing 100,000+ uniques/hour with no CDN.

The only way I was able to get this type of speed, was to strip out all CDN access.