Grant wrote:
I've been optimizing my site's performance by tuning the server-side
code and watching how it affects the amount of time Firefox reports as
"Waiting". It seems like the "Transferring" time would be optimized
by reducing the size of the HTML to download. What about "Looking up"
and "C
> > > That might be true for YOU but not necessarily for everyone else.
> >
> > If it's true for me, it's almost definitely true for others, and
> > that's a problem. It doesn't need to be true for "everyone else" to
> > be a problem.
>
> Mind giving us a URL so we can DOS^H^H^Hhelp figure it out
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:37:44PM -0800, Grant wrote:
> > That might be true for YOU but not necessarily for everyone else.
>
> If it's true for me, it's almost definitely true for others, and
> that's a problem. It doesn't need to be true for "everyone else" to
> be a problem.
Mind giving us a
> > "A few seconds" can easily be the difference between a customer
> > spending enough time on my site to find something they want to buy,
> > and not. When I click on a search results link, I'll hit stop and try
> > another link if the page takes a few seconds too long to load.
>
> That might b
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Grant wrote:
> "A few seconds" can easily be the difference between a customer
> spending enough time on my site to find something they want to buy,
> and not. When I click on a search results link, I'll hit stop and try
> another link if the page takes a few seconds too long
> > I noticed that if I'm doing a lot of clicking around there is pretty
> > much no time spent with either of those, but if I work on something
> > and then come back to the browser after a bit, Firefox can really
> > spend some time there.
>
> Could be anything. Maybe Firefox is caching stuff ,
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Grant wrote:
> I noticed that if I'm doing a lot of clicking around there is pretty
> much no time spent with either of those, but if I work on something
> and then come back to the browser after a bit, Firefox can really
> spend some time there.
Could be anything. Maybe Fire
Grant ha scritto:
It could have to with a lot of stuff. It is possible that FF has some
DNS cache that gets flushed , it also almost certain ( don't trust me,
my ISP has, I guess it is common :) ) that your ISP has a DNS cache and
it is possible that other users queries have flushed yours. You can
> It could have to with a lot of stuff. It is possible that FF has some
> DNS cache that gets flushed , it also almost certain ( don't trust me,
> my ISP has, I guess it is common :) ) that your ISP has a DNS cache and
> it is possible that other users queries have flushed yours. You can ask
> mozi
> It could have to with a lot of stuff. It is possible that FF has some
> DNS cache that gets flushed , it also almost certain ( don't trust me,
> my ISP has, I guess it is common :) ) that your ISP has a DNS cache and
> it is possible that other users queries have flushed yours. You can ask
> mozi
On Sunday 20 February 2005 10:39, Grant wrote:
> > The time needed to lookup is probably spend running a DNS lookup , I
> > doubt changes to your apache can affect this in any way. There is always
> > a latency associated with the network ( especially on a non-LAN ) , so
> > don't try to get it fas
It could have to with a lot of stuff. It is possible that FF has some
DNS cache that gets flushed , it also almost certain ( don't trust me,
my ISP has, I guess it is common :) ) that your ISP has a DNS cache and
it is possible that other users queries have flushed yours. You can ask
mozilla-devs a
> The time needed to lookup is probably spend running a DNS lookup , I
> doubt changes to your apache can affect this in any way. There is always
> a latency associated with the network ( especially on a non-LAN ) , so
> don't try to get it faster that light :) For example , measure the ping
> roun
The time needed to lookup is probably spend running a DNS lookup , I
doubt changes to your apache can affect this in any way. There is always
a latency associated with the network ( especially on a non-LAN ) , so
don't try to get it faster that light :) For example , measure the ping
round-trip tim
Grant wrote:
I've been optimizing my site's performance by tuning the server-side
code and watching how it affects the amount of time Firefox reports as
"Waiting". It seems like the "Transferring" time would be optimized
by reducing the size of the HTML to download. What about "Looking up"
and "C
I've been optimizing my site's performance by tuning the server-side
code and watching how it affects the amount of time Firefox reports as
"Waiting". It seems like the "Transferring" time would be optimized
by reducing the size of the HTML to download. What about "Looking up"
and "Connecting"?
16 matches
Mail list logo
