- This topic has 26 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m having some trouble with this site at my home. BBB seems to load okay on other computers. I’m hooked up to a router, I am wondering if it is the router that is making things load slowly.
Any suggestions?
I must say I have been continually surprised since I joined BBB a few days ago at how slow the pages seem to load, compared with 2 or 3 other similar forums I visit regularly.
As yet I haven’t gotten around to objective timing comparisons, but it sure seems “noticeable” here – though “tolerable” ;).
(I’m on a broadband connection, but currently limited to aprox dialup speed, 56k).Last night the connection and page fetch time was quite high, but it seems to be back to normal now.
Thanks for that, David. But my feeling is that this seems more a “regular” thing… so… I’ve now run some tests:
I’ve taken a fairly long post, and timed the “Preview” page loading. I ran this 4 times, then ran exactly the same operation on 2 various other forum sites for comparison, then finally a second set on BBB.
Tests were all run close to 10:00 Mon 6/6 (U.S. EDT).Results (time, in seconds):
BBB (vBulletin3.0.6) ……. 12-15-15-12
WackyB (Invision 2.0.3) .. 15- 7- 8- 8
Vimas (phpBB 2.0.6) ……. 7-10-10-13
BBB (2nd run) ……………. 14-14-12-12I admit that the difference is not as bad as my initial gut feeling, but it still clearly shows that (for me anyway) accessing BBB is markedly slower than (some!?) other forum sites.
Having said that, this doesn’t put me off using BBB, as the general atmoshpere and facilities here are WORTH waiting a few extra seconds for !!
I just post this just as constructive feedback, I hope. 😉Eagle_Kiwi wrote:Thanks for that, David. But my feeling is that this seems more a “regular” thing… so… I’ve now run some tests:I’ve taken a fairly long post, and timed the “Preview” page loading. I ran this 4 times, then ran exactly the same operation on 2 various other forum sites for comparison, then finally a second set on BBB.
Tests were all run close to 10:00 Mon 6/6 (U.S. EDT).Results (time, in seconds):
BBB (vBulletin3.0.6) ……. 12-15-15-12
WackyB (Invision 2.0.3) .. 15- 7- 8- 8
Vimas (phpBB 2.0.6) ……. 7-10-10-13
BBB (2nd run) ……………. 14-14-12-12I admit that the difference is not as bad as my initial gut feeling, but it still clearly shows that (for me anyway) accessing BBB is markedly slower than (some!?) other forum sites.
Having said that, this doesn’t put me off using BBB, as the general atmoshpere and facilities here are WORTH waiting a few extra seconds for !!
I just post this just as constructive feedback, I hope. 😉This is EXCELLENT! Thanks for going the extra mile and checking running the numbers. Can you do me a favor? Can you provide links to the pages you tested on each site (including the page you used here at BBB) so I can do some further testing?There are a several components to load time. First, the time it takes the server to execute the PHP script. This can vary depending on the number of database queries, the performance and load on the server. The second factor is the load of any externally hosted content. The most common example would be Google ads, which are loaded via Javascript. The third factor is the “weight” of the page. This is the total bytes of the HTML plus all of the images required to render the particular page.
We have very fast page generation times, so I suspect it may be the weight of the page. I won’t be able to say for certain until I compare each page you used in your test.
I’d like to see what I can do to speed things up for you and everyone else!
🙂
Sure Jeff, I’d be very glad to.
But… I’ll send it to your email (shortly) – partly as it’s all getting a bit technical for public posting, I feel.But also (ulp ;)) cos it’s QUICKER for me .
I have run into slow load times a lot. I just figured the host is overloaded with irc and everything else that bbb does. That and I tent to have like 4 windows open to bbb and it does have a lot of graphics to load. Jeff ever thought about using SSI if you aren’t using it already?
Amy: Yes, I use includes extensively already. There are a lot of graphics, but they will be cached locally as long as your browser is properly configurated.
Eagle-Kiwi: I got your email (thanks!) and I understand why you experienced such a discrepancy. You are comparing the “new post” or “edit post” pages. I have configured these forums to use the “Enhanced WYSIWYG Editor” by default, which does take considerably longer to load, but also gives you a nicer editing environment. Personally, I like the enhanced functionality enough that it’s worth the slower load time, especially since it only effects me when I’m submitting a new topic or editing a topic.
Each member can personalize this selection to suit their preference. There are three options:
- Enhanced Interface – Full WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) Editing. This is currently the default setting for members. The slowest loading option. Personally, I think the enhanced features are worth the slower page load time, but you may want to change this.
- Standard Editor – Extra formatting controls. Provides buttons to insert BBCode. Slightly slower loading than the Basic Editor.
- Basic Editor – A simple text box. Good for basic editing or for members who are comfortable with BBCode. The fastest option.
I’ll do some benchmarking tonight, but simply changing this setting should help a lot.
Sorry to disappoint, Jeff, but I changed from your default “Enhanced” back to “Standard” within hours of joining BBB (mainly as I couldn’t figure posting links properly in enhanced, but in standard I find them easy!).
So, just for the record, my tests above were all done using “Standard”.
Ah that is disappointing, but my advice will still help those who are using the Enhanced Editor and want to speed things up.
Here are some comparative benchmarks as of today, performed using http://www.sitereportcard.com
Main Forum Index
- BigBlueBall.com
- Total Page Size: 149.14 Kb
- Total objects: 140
- HTML Page Size: 81.34 Kb
- Images: 67.80 Kb
- Rating 2/10
- Download time at 56K: 24.54 sec.
- WackyB.com
- Total Page Size: 105.71 Kb
- Total objects on the site: 48
- HTML Page Size: 48.90 Kb
- Images: 56.81 Kb
- Rating 5/10
- Download time at 56K: 17.40 sec.
Sample Forum Topic (20 or more replies)
- BigBlueBall.com
- Total Page Size: 276.71 Kb
- Total objects on page: 107
- HTML Page Size: 88.90 Kb
- Images: 187.81
- Rating: 1/10
- Download time at 56K: 45.54 sec.
- WackyB.com
- Total Page Size: 204.31 Kb
- Total objects on page: 273
- HTML Page Size: 116.53 Kb
- Images: 87.78 Kb
- Rating: 1/10
- Download time at 56K: 33.62 sec.
Clearly the reason why the pages are loading slower is because of the number and size of the images used.
These figures represent a worst-case scenario that does not take caching into account. Most of the images on either site are repeated elements (the logo, the navigation, etc.). These elements are normally cached locally by your browser, and thus will not be loaded each time you visit a page. If they already exist in your local cache, they arent’ reloaded. When cached images account for 60% or more of the total page size, your effective page load time could be cut in half.
So my main problem is not the HTML page size, but the size and quantity of images. I’ll do some additional research to determine what percentage of those images will normally be cached and see what I can do to improve those figures.
That SiteReportCard is a marvellous place! (Adds to Favs ;))
Anyway, my (cheap!) broadband gives me 256k for about a week each month, then cuts back to 56k for remainder – and I AM finding BBB quite “difficult” to use, timewise.
So, mainly for my interest (but I guess others’ too!?) I’ve done my own little chart here, including 2 other forums I use occasionally.These are all Main Forum Index only, and Jeff, I take your point about worst-case scenario, as this ignores benefits of caching.
(All decimal results rounded to nearest full unit.)
URL…..PageSize…Objects…HTMsize…Images….Rating…D/L@56k……*!BBB
………….165k………140……..79k……..86k……..1/10………27sec……..*29*
WackyB
………….106k………48……..49k………57k………5/10……..17sec……..*17*
SWI
……………99k……..69……..70k………29k……….5/10……..16sec……..*18*
FreedomList
…………..34k………43……..27k……….8k……….9/10………6sec……..*11*Having visually compared those 4 pages, it occured to me that maybe despite graphics, adverts, extra li’l bits (or lack of) – perhaps the MAIN factor is simply the forum’s particular hierarchy structure.
So I added an extra column (*!) at the end, simply showing the number of individual forums shown on the “Main Forum Index” page.
It happens to show a REMARKABLE correlation with the penultimate column. But also I guess with most other columns too – simply, the obvious: The bigger the page, the longer it takes!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.