Website Wait time (pingdom)

Status
Not open for further replies.

hbazer

Member
Messages
398
Reaction score
7
Points
18
I ran 'loading time' tests on your site lebruloir.x10.mx
and see load times from less than 6 seconds to more than 30 seconds

IMO:
1. WordPress is just slow
2. your free-hosting server looks to be under a high load right now
3. 'Pingdom Website Speed Test' is only good to see the ratio of load time for 'requests' - to each other
4. A better DNS test site is --> http://www.intodns.com/lebruloir.x10.mx
 

bruloir

New Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ok but what about this :
Results vary A LOT depending on when I run the test....
It passes from Faster than 100% of website tested
to
Slower than 93 % of website tested....

Website speed test (1).png
Website speed test.png
Website speed test-v2.png
Website speed test.v2-.png
 

essellar

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
227
Points
63
That's mostly because with a Free Hosting account you're sharing a server with a LOT of other accounts (thousands), many of which are also running CMS (like WordPress, Joomla or Drupal) or forum scripts, all of which are kind of heavy in terms of database requests and memory space requirements.

When you're really lucky, you'll hit the server when it's more or less idle, and you get to see what the server can do with a full processor core when the 64MB memory space restriction and the raw network throughput to/from the database server are the only constraints on performance (hint: it's not a water-cooled overclocked desktop gaming machine, but it's pretty quick).

At other times, your request, or parts of it, is going to have to sit in a queue for a while waiting for other people's requests to be served first. The biggest problem with a single heavy page request is going to be waiting for database queries. But most "modern" web pages consist of many HTTP requests, one for the main page and several more for things like images, CSS files, JavaScript and AJAX/JSON data sources. If any of those are dynamically created (CSS created from config files; watermarked or thumbnail images created on-the-fly) you run into the same "might have to wait" conditions. There are times when you have to wait for static files as well, simply due to traffic at the server.

It boils down to this: Free Hosting accounts are suitable for hobby/vanity sites and not much else. Server resources may be a lot cheaper these days than they've been in the past, but they're not actually free yet, so if the hosting provider isn't making money from you directly (like with compulsory ads), there is a limit to what can be provided on a per-account basis while maintaining anything like a sane business model (potential upgrades to paid services and/or domain registration fees, etc.). For some sites, the down side of being on a heavily-used and lightly-provisioned¹ server are worth the compromise because, well, it's free, right? But if you're trying to run a business from the site, whether that site is a direct source of revenue or a sort of online resume/CV/portfolio, you really do need something that has a higher likelihood of fast response. You can only get so far by optimizing your site (installing enabling sane caching plug-ins, combining all CSS/JS into one or two static files each, ensuring that image thumbnails are created as static files, using CSS sprites rather than individual background images, eliminating external requests for fonts/analytics, etc.). The rest comes from making sure that you have enough server resources available to you often enough to make the page consistently fast, and that would mean stepping up to one of the paid plans (Illuminated, Premium or VPS).

________________________
¹ That's "lightly-provisioned" relative to the number of accounts; the servers themselves are pretty heavy-duty, complex clusters of computers.
 

bruloir

New Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thank you a lot for your answer, because I was questionning myself to know if it was from my side (some part yes) or the server side.
But hey as you said...It's free !

Thanks a lot !
 

coversx

New Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can say my experience has been great thus far and I am really pleased with the support my website gets in terms of time for pages loading, and while it can be slow at times, there is never any actual downtime that I've experienced.<br><br>There are many others' to choose from and I've tried them all but none come close to x10, reason being I believe is due to Litespeed, since it is Apache compatible but without the overhead and greater security; it means more web technologies can be supported.<br><br>In other words it is the ultimate web development environment available and the price is very tempting in that it is no more cost than an exclusively paid hosting and I think anyone who knows anything about web design will find even if they pay someone else a similar price they will miss out on key language supports therefore you can test your code beforehand, which makes it nice and easy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top