page load / size

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Cli F

unread,
Sep 12, 2016, 7:29:35 PM9/12/16
to apostrophenow
Any tips for reducing the size of the page load? 

Without any real content on the page, for what would effectively be 10/20k in pure HTML, the page load is about 1.2mb +

As soon as you add a few more libraries and imagery this very quickly scales up - so any tips to reduce that 1.2mb load?

Thanks!


Tom Boutell

unread,
Sep 13, 2016, 8:38:39 AM9/13/16
to apostr...@googlegroups.com
Well, by way of example, the urbanengineers.com home page is 277K
bytes logged in (just as an upper bound), and logged out it's 110K.
This is an Apostrophe 2.x site.

And looking at the code I much of the bulk when logged out is inline
SVG and other stuff specific to the project.

As for assets other than the page itself, when I subtract the project
specific stuff like images for a logged out user I don't see a
worrisome total there either.

So since it doesn't seem to be a universal problem, I need to ask to
see the page in question in order to venture a more informed opinion
on what might be happening.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "apostrophenow" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to apostropheno...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--


THOMAS BOUTELL, SUPPORT LEAD
P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

Cli F

unread,
Sep 14, 2016, 1:19:12 AM9/14/16
to apostrophenow
Hi Tom, what I mean is the total downloaded from the home page at urbanengineers.com is 3.25mb through my browser, or 2.63mb on https://gtmetrix.com/reports/urbanengineers.com/a8YmASl5

...if you then go to a significantly less graphic intensive page such as about-honors, it is 1.82mb through my browser, or 1.14mb through here: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/urbanengineers.com/5xE5r9pV

Tom Boutell

unread,
Sep 16, 2016, 9:06:18 AM9/16/16
to apostr...@googlegroups.com
OK, thanks for clarifying.

The page itself is 110K. Most of that is project-specific markup. Your
choice whether to use less markup there. Around 20K or so might be due
to Apostrophe.

Of the remainder, 1MB consists of project-specific images. Again...
your choice. For these we used the "full" option with the
apostrophe-images widget, we could have used "half" to send much
smaller images, and for this particular page layout perhaps we should
have. But it's not a limitation of Apostrophe, just something the
developer has a choice about.

There's 151K of CSS; how much of that is Apostrophe responsible for?

jQuery UI: 25K. We should look at whether we really need to send this
to logged out users. Probably not.
pikaday: 4K. Same.
fontawesome 4: this is worth it for most projects!

The rest: mostly project-specific. Your choice as developer.

As for JavaScript, we pull in lodash, jquery, async and some much
smaller things.

But all of Apostrophe's asset overhead likely comes to less than one
image on the page. What you're mostly seeing here is some bulk in the
project-specific stuff.

Tom Boutell

unread,
Sep 16, 2016, 9:20:09 AM9/16/16
to apostr...@googlegroups.com
A few more notes:

The "serve scaled images" score from the analyzer is entirely based on
one Twitter image, which we don't control.

The redirects score is a similar situation, third party analytics stuff.

The icons that are not in a sprite file are project-specific.

That leaves the gzip complaint. Everything except the page itself is
gzip transfer encoded. It is weird that nginx isn't compressing the
webpage itself, when text/html is supposedly turned on by default for
gzip. It might be proxy related... but it's definitely out of
Apostrophe's hands at that point.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages