Differences from version 24 to 30



@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

-!! Introduction
-Bitweaver has the same issues as any big modular CMS - its pages are heavy, because it is __very__ powerful and has __unlimited__ features. At the time of writing this, the statistics of the main wiki page of bitweaver,
+! Introduction
+Bitweaver has the same issues as any big modular CMS - its pages are heavy, because it is __very__ powerful and has __many__ features. Back in [http://web.archive.org/web/20061011144750/www.bitweaver.org/articles/|April 2006], when this page was created, the statistics of the main wiki page of bitweaver,
 [http://www.websiteoptimization.com/cgi-bin/wso/wso.pl?url=http://www.bitweaver.org/wiki/index.php|analyzed by the online speed report service of websiteoptimization.com], were:
 ||Total HTTP Requests:|31
 Total Size:|103767 bytes

@@ -10,14 +10,25 @@

 Javascript:|58227 bytes
 connection rate 56K|20.68 seconds download time
 connection rate ISDN 128K|6.33 seconds||
+
+In 2010 (May 31), this becomes
+||Object type| Size (bytes)|Download @ 56K (seconds)|Download @ T1 (seconds)
+HTML:| 32249| 6.63 | 0.37
+HTML Images:| 22854 | 7.35| 2.92
+CSS Images:| 38629 | 8.50| 1.00
+Total Images:| 61483 | 15.85| 3.92
+Javascript:| 71186| 15.19| 1.38
+CSS:| 1096 | 0.42 | 0.21||
+
+with some further qualitative analysis : there are green points such as use of Gzip, only one HTML and one CSS file, but too many images (18), and too much Javascript (71k). Of course, nobody today still uses 56k links, but still at T1 speed the calculated speed is about 6 seconds (Yes, I too get more than 9 by simply adding, go figure). So a remommendation would be to use Gzip also for javascript packages. Also adding width and height attributes to all images should make rendering faster.
 
 {maketoc include="all"}
 
-!! What could be done?
-!!! eliminate extra size
-* Jakob Nielsen is positive that we should achieve sub-8 seconds load time for the users to enjoy navigating our site. Another reason for speed optimisation is reducing the load for sites with heavy traffic. In the above report, it is obviously a rather impossible task to scale down 120 kilobyte (20 kilobyte of CSS are omitted by the analysis) to 30, necessary for sub-8 load time, but we might want to get closer to that usability ideal. (Side note: at that moment bitweaver was using Ajax for some packages - 45k!)
+! What could be done?
+!! eliminate extra size
+* Jakob Nielsen is positive that we should achieve sub-8 seconds load time for the users to enjoy navigating our site. Another reason for speed optimisation is reducing the load for sites with heavy traffic. In the above report, it is obviously a rather impossible task to scale down 120 kilobyte (20 kilobyte of CSS are omitted by the analysis) to 30, necessary for sub-8 load time, but we might want to get closer to that usability ideal.
 
-!!! eliminate extra HTTP requests
+!! eliminate extra HTTP requests
 * Reading: ''Modem connections (56Kbps or less) are corrected by a packet loss factor of 0.7. All download times include delays due to round-trip latency with an average of 0.2 seconds per object. With 31 total objects for this page, that computes to a total lag time due to latency of 6.2 seconds.'' In the above example, we are loosing more then 6 seconds just for HTTP requests, so there's no chance for sub8 response :(
 * "The less requests the better", so before optimizing file size, think how to reduce quantity of files per page.
 * Think twice before you start "slicing" into small pieces your images and backgrounds in some Adobe ))ImageReady((. This technique is an offspring of table-based layouts -- when bw has div-based layout at the moment. IMHO with div-based layout you might get better results having 3 big background images instead of 30 small ones.

@@ -26,24 +37,37 @@

 * [http://www.creativyst.com/Prod/3/|Eliminate redundant markup] before uploading to the server, but leave read-frendly version locally for editing.
 * [http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/shrinksafe/|Eliminate redundant markup] and [http://dean.edwards.name/packer/|pack] your custom CSS and Javascript files.
 
-!!! Image optimisation
+!! Image optimisation
 * [http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/|PNGCRUSH]
 
-!!! Other compression
+!! Other compression
 * Bitweaver's gzip function
 * Smarty's { strip}
 * Always set the height, width and alt-attribute of images, so the browser shows the page before the images are loaded. Same for tables.
 
-!! Comparison
-To compare bitweaver with other content management systems, pass their mainpages through [http://websiteoptimization.com|websiteoptimization.com's analyzer]:
-||Link to page analyzed|Total HTTP Requests |Total Size |load time on 56k modem|remarks
-__[http://www.bitweaver.org/wiki/|bitweaver]__|31|59368 bytes|11.83 seconds|20k CSS file is not calculated
-__[http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=TikiWiki|TikiWiki]__|21|189316 bytes|38.13 seconds|quite a lot of everything
-__[http://www.joomla.org|Joomla]__|60|200149 bytes|40.29 seconds|over 100k HTTP images!
-__[http://www.drupal.org|Drupal]__|51|85049 bytes|17.95 seconds|0 (ZERO!) Javascript
-__[http://www.xoops.org|Xoops]__|30|131660 bytes|26.24 seconds|some broken links
-__[http://www.xaraya.org|Xaraya]__|49|191770 bytes|40.82 seconds|60k CSS in 14 files!
-__[http://www.e107.org|e107]__|73|238522 bytes|47.94 seconds|170k images! (which also means the actual frame is rather slick)
-__[http://www.mediawiki.org/|mediawiki]__|29|84136 bytes|18.37 seconds|30kb CSS in 8 files - seems unnecessary for such a basic layout||
-Please add other contenders to this table
-with >30 HTTP requests and about 80k weight we are looking good :)
+! Comparisons
+!! Web Page Analyzer (04/2006)
+To compare bitweaver with other content management systems, pass their main pages through [http://websiteoptimization.com|websiteoptimization.com's analyzer]:
+||Link to page analyzed|Total HTTP Requests |Total Size |__load time on 56k modem__|remarks
+__[http://bitweaver.org/wiki/|bitweaver]__|31|__59368 bytes__|__11.83 seconds__|20k CSS file is not calculated
+__[http://drupal.org|Drupal]__|51|85049 bytes|17.95 seconds|__0 (ZERO!) Javascript__
+__[http://mediawiki.org/|mediawiki]__|29|84136 bytes|18.37 seconds|30kb CSS in 8 files - seems unnecessary for such a basic layout
+__[http://xoops.org|Xoops]__|30|131660 bytes|26.24 seconds|some broken links
+__[http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=TikiWiki]__|__21__|189316 bytes|38.13 seconds|quite a lot of everything
+__[http://joomla.org|Joomla]__|60|200149 bytes|40.29 seconds|over 100k HTTP images!
+__[http://xaraya.org|Xaraya]__|49|191770 bytes|40.82 seconds|60k CSS in 14 files!
+__[http://e107.org|e107]__|73|238522 bytes|47.94 seconds|170k images! (which also means the actual frame is rather slick)||
+
+!! ))WebWait(( (11/2007)
+[http://webwait.com|webwait.com]: ''Use ))WebWait(( to benchmark your website or test the speed of your web connection. Timing is accurate because ))WebWait(( pulls down the entire website into your browser, so it takes into account Ajax/Javascript processing and image loading which other tools ignore.''
+||Link to page analyzed |__Average load time__ after 5 runs (in seconds, call interval: 60 seconds)
+[http://xaraya.org|Xaraya]|__0.94__
+[http://drupal.org|Drupal]|1.05
+[http://mediawiki.org/|mediawiki]|1.26
+[http://e107.org|e107]|2.03
+[http://joomla.org|Joomla]|2.68
+[http://www.bitweaver.org/articles/|bitweaver.org/blogs]|2.80
+[http://www.bitweaver.org/wiki/|bitweaver.org/wiki]|3.26
+[http://www.bitweaver.org/articles/|bitweaver.org/articles]|3.61
+[http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=TikiWiki]|3.95
+[http://xoops.org|Xoops]|7.72||
Page History
Date/CommentUserIPVersion
31 May 2010 (12:05 UTC)
While most othe content here is incredibly old, I updated WSO's result as a start.
Tochinet193.191.209.24430
Current • Source
francescabuchanan194.44.228.3429
View • Compare • Difference • Source
laetzer85.178.62.11728
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4527
View • Compare • Difference • Source
laetzer85.178.30.7426
View • Compare • Difference • Source
laetzer85.178.30.7424
View • Compare • Difference • Source
dspt213.184.224.323
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4522
View • Compare • Difference • Source
dspt213.184.224.321
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4520
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4519
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4518
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4517
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4516
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing194.152.164.4515
View • Compare • Difference • Source
dspt217.21.50.16714
View • Compare • Difference • Source
dspt213.184.224.37
View • Compare • Difference • Source
dspt213.184.224.34
View • Compare • Difference • Source