miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Hey all,I'm working on a University website and trying to optimize it (performance wise) according to the Yahoo Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Website guide.So far I've to tweak a whole bunch of settings adhering to those rules and achieved pretty good grade for the site (according to YSlow).What I intend to do now is measure the site load speed from various parts of the world. As there are no conceivable way of doing so sitting in a particular country, I request the board members to help me out a bit with this.For measuring the load time, unless you're a scriptie, you'll probably have to resort to a plain old stopwatch (which is a part and parcel of all mobile phones these days).The information I need from you is: Approximate load times for the front page (cached and non-cached) Country you are from Your internet link speed Browser make (IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome etc.) and Version Here's what you should do:Clear your browser Cache - I guess most of you know how to do that. If not write back.Type the URL: http://www.stamford.edu/- but don't load it yet Fire up your stopwatch and press Enter to start loading the siteStop the stopwatch as soon as loading completes and take the reading. That should be your non-cached load time.Now repeat the process above once more. It should be a whole lot quicker this time as most of the site will be read from the cache. This is the cached load time.Once you've got both the readings, please post back here along with the information I've requested.Thanks a million to all the participants in this survey and looking forward to your active response.Cheers, m^eP.S. If you want to get an approximate timings for your own site from a single source autonomously, you should try this new and really cool tool from Pingdom. The service is hosted in Sweden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sofiaweb 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Approximate load times for the front page,cached (00:00:03),non-cached(00:00:21)# Canada# DSL ,(100.0Mbps),512 kb# Firefox Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Not very kind test. 0h0m13s50 first load, then blank page, then asked to install flash! Installed it, cleared cache and rebooted, and done the test again.My internet speed is ADSL 512kbits/secCountry : FranceHere are the resultsWindows XP SP2-------------------Internet Explorer 6.0.29.0.1280.spsp_sp2.gdrUncached : 0h0m12.99 sCached : 0h0m07sFirefox 2.0.0.16Uncached : 0h0m09.64s (stanford logo comes last)Cached : 0h0m3.10sWindows Vista---------------Firefox 3.0.10Uncached : 0h0m04.98scached : 0h0m02.96sMicrosoft Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.1883Unached : 0h0m04.86Cached : 0h0m03.26s Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pyost 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2009 I can't help but notice the similarity to Stanford Anyway: Non-cached load time: 17secCached load time: 3sec Country: SerbiaInternet speed: 1536/128kbpsOS and browser: Ubuntu 9.04, Firefox 3.0.13 The non-cached load time is a bit long, I'm sure you can make it shorter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
takerraj 0 Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Country : IndiaISP speed : 2mbpsO.S : Ubuntu 9.04Browser : Firefox 3Cached time : 3.245 secsNon-cached : 5.812 secsUsed webmonkey stopwatch script to check the precise load time. Webmonkey stopwatch script can be found here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wutske 0 Report post Posted August 8, 2009 First thing I'd like to say, in Opera, when I browse to http://www.stamford.edu/, I get a "The page you are looking for wasn't found on our server.", in Firefox the page redirects to http://www.stamford.edu/en (I used this link for both FF and Opera). openSuse 11.0 with Opera 9.64 Non-Cached: 4s066 Cached: 2s586 openSuse 11.0 with Firefox 3.5.1 Non-cached: 7s124 Cached: 2s117 Country: Belgium Your internet link speed: 4Mbps ps. you might check the "page not found" page, the banner image is takes a while to load, you might want to use jpg which has much better compression ratios for images. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites