WebPagetest Forums
Start Render Time - Printable Version

+- WebPagetest Forums (https://www.webpagetest.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Web Performance (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discuss Test Results (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Start Render Time (/showthread.php?tid=246)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


RE: Start Render Time - green-watch.org - 06-25-2010 02:43 PM

I suppose I should read up on this thread because I am starting to become interested in the start render time.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_GFX/1/details/

It looks like for this test it starts rendering after the document complete event was sent? Any reason why it would be sent after this event?

Sincerely,
Travis Walters


RE: Start Render Time - DJMorrisInc - 06-25-2010 07:40 PM

(06-25-2010 08:27 AM)pmeenan Wrote:  Fundamentally you need to get those css and js files combined into one of each to get your start render times. W3 is one solution that will do it for you and there may be others but that's really the only optimization you should be looking at initially. You can try looking for another plugin that does the combining but still plays nice with hypercache - maybe PHPSpeedy: http://aciddrop.com/2008/12/15/php-speedy-wp-051-recommended-upgrade/

PHP Speedy is installed now and it interfered with one plug-in/widget that I quickly removed, and it seemed to fill some big gaps in my test results....BEFORE adding PHP Speedy - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100624_G00/ ...and AFTER - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_H75/ . On the PHP Speedy setting I have minify set for pages and CSS....should I also check 'minify javascript'?

I liked the response as to the simplicity of a wordpress plug-in and it was easy to implement, but why is my load time slightly slower and shouldn't that of improved? Most sites I have seen with similar scores have load times of only 1 to 3 seconds. Any other great bits of advice Smile? This forum and site rocks, and thanks for all the great advice and helping me get such better test results!


RE: Start Render Time - jarrod1937 - 06-26-2010 12:44 AM

(06-25-2010 07:40 PM)DJMorrisInc Wrote:  
(06-25-2010 08:27 AM)pmeenan Wrote:  Fundamentally you need to get those css and js files combined into one of each to get your start render times. W3 is one solution that will do it for you and there may be others but that's really the only optimization you should be looking at initially. You can try looking for another plugin that does the combining but still plays nice with hypercache - maybe PHPSpeedy: http://aciddrop.com/2008/12/15/php-speedy-wp-051-recommended-upgrade/

PHP Speedy is installed now and it interfered with one plug-in/widget that I quickly removed, and it seemed to fill some big gaps in my test results....BEFORE adding PHP Speedy - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100624_G00/ ...and AFTER - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_GV2/ . On the PHP Speedy setting I have minify set for pages and CSS....should I also check 'minify javascript'?

I liked the response as to the simplicity of a wordpress plug-in and it was easy to implement, but why is my load time slightly slower and shouldn't that of improved? Most sites I have seen with similar scores have load times of only 1 to 3 seconds. Any other great bits of advice Smile? This forum and site rocks, and thanks for all the great advice and helping me get such better test results!
Watch out there. Your before is using IE8 and your after is using IE7. It tells you this at the top, but you can also tell because your before is handling requests with 4 simultaneous connections, whereas your after is handling only 2. This can highly skew your results.


RE: Start Render Time - DJMorrisInc - 06-26-2010 12:50 AM

(06-26-2010 12:44 AM)jarrod1937 Wrote:  Watch out there. Your before is using IE8 and your after is using IE7. It tells you this at the top, but you can also tell because your before is handling requests with 4 simultaneous connections, whereas your after is handling only 2. This can highly skew your results.

Oops, you are right....I re-did the AFTER using the IE 8 for both and edited the comparison of the two above, but it left me additional mountains to climb....I am also going to try to make MaxCDN work for me again....I talked to technical support and the problem was coming from Host Gator when they created a CNAME for me.

Here are the updated test results: BEFORE adding PHP Speedy - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100624_G00/ ...and AFTER - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_H75/


RE: Start Render Time - jarrod1937 - 06-26-2010 12:55 AM

(06-25-2010 02:43 PM)green-watch.org Wrote:  I suppose I should read up on this thread because I am starting to become interested in the start render time.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_GFX/1/details/

It looks like for this test it starts rendering after the document complete event was sent? Any reason why it would be sent after this event?

Sincerely,
Travis Walters
Wow, that is an odd result there, had yet to ever see the render start after the document has completed. My best guess would be some of your inline javascript being the cause.
(06-26-2010 12:50 AM)DJMorrisInc Wrote:  
(06-26-2010 12:44 AM)jarrod1937 Wrote:  Watch out there. Your before is using IE8 and your after is using IE7. It tells you this at the top, but you can also tell because your before is handling requests with 4 simultaneous connections, whereas your after is handling only 2. This can highly skew your results.

Oops, you are right....I re-did the them using the IE 8 for both and edited the comparison above, but it left me additional mountains to climb....I am also going to try to make MaxCDN work for me again....I talked to technical support and the problem was coming from Host Gator when they made me a CNAME.

Here are the updated test results: BEFORE adding PHP Speedy - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100624_G00/ ...and AFTER - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_H75/
Yeah, those results make a bit more sense. As for maxcdn, keep in mind you don't necessarily need to mess with cnames unless you want to hide that you're using maxcdn. I simply just used the default url maxcdn provided for each pullzone i created. This also has the benefit, as you realized, of simplifying the total system so that there is less likely hood of problems.


RE: Start Render Time - pmeenan - 06-26-2010 02:34 AM

(06-25-2010 02:43 PM)green-watch.org Wrote:  I suppose I should read up on this thread because I am starting to become interested in the start render time.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_GFX/1/details/

It looks like for this test it starts rendering after the document complete event was sent? Any reason why it would be sent after this event?

Sincerely,
Travis Walters

My guess would be a combination of factors. Since IE lazy-draws to the screen, the testing on FIOS changes the content fast enough that it doesn't get a chance to try to draw the screen until around doc complete but then it looks like the CPU gets completely pegged and you have some javascript (or something else really intense) firing onLoad which is blocking the main UI thread from painting as well which brings it out even further.

I'd take a look with Dynatrace Ajax edition which is a great javascript profiler for IE and it will tell you what the problematic code is. Another option to hide the problem would be to further delay your onLoad code with a timeout timer but I wouldn't recommend doing that until you have fixed the code - the long execution will block the user from being able to do anything with the page as well.

I've seen it happen on a few sites so it's not a completely unique situation.


RE: Start Render Time - pmeenan - 06-26-2010 02:45 AM

(06-26-2010 12:50 AM)DJMorrisInc Wrote:  Oops, you are right....I re-did the AFTER using the IE 8 for both and edited the comparison of the two above, but it left me additional mountains to climb....I am also going to try to make MaxCDN work for me again....I talked to technical support and the problem was coming from Host Gator when they created a CNAME for me.

Here are the updated test results: BEFORE adding PHP Speedy - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100624_G00/ ...and AFTER - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_H75/

I think you have taken care of most of the easier things (besides getting MaxCDN to work). I don't know if I'd bother with minifying either the css or js but if it's not breaking anything then it's fine to leave it on.

Improvements from this point out may be outside of what you can do from within Wordpress:

- You have quite a bit of javascript loading. If you could load the javascript asynchronously or at the bottom of the page it would help the user experience but I don't think wordpress gives you that level of control

- You could sprite some of the images/logos together but again, that may not be something that is easy to do within wordpress.

- If you're not already using the asyc method for google analytics you could switch that over which may help a bit: http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/asyncTracking.html


Try not to compare performance based purely on the grades. They will help you make a given site faster but two different sites may get the same grades and have completely different performance. They'r more of a starting point on the basics - the waterfall is really where you should spend your time once you get used to reading them.


RE: Start Render Time - DJMorrisInc - 06-26-2010 02:46 AM

(06-26-2010 12:55 AM)jarrod1937 Wrote:  Yeah, those results make a bit more sense. As for maxcdn, keep in mind you don't necessarily need to mess with cnames unless you want to hide that you're using maxcdn. I simply just used the default url maxcdn provided for each pullzone i created. This also has the benefit, as you realized, of simplifying the total system so that there is less likely hood of problems.

That was the exact response I was looking for Big Grin...it's funny that you said that because I posed this exact question to them but they had not responded yet....they figured it was an error that hostgator made with the CNAME considering the default url http://jupiterflhomes.jupiterfloridaho.netdna-cdn.com loads fine.

DO you know if using MaxCDN will conflict with PHP Speedy or should I be fine with both together?


RE: Start Render Time - DJMorrisInc - 06-26-2010 06:33 AM

(06-26-2010 02:45 AM)pmeenan Wrote:  I think you have taken care of most of the easier things (besides getting MaxCDN to work). I don't know if I'd bother with minifying either the css or js but if it's not breaking anything then it's fine to leave it on.

Improvements from this point out may be outside of what you can do from within Wordpress:

- You have quite a bit of javascript loading. If you could load the javascript asynchronously or at the bottom of the page it would help the user experience but I don't think wordpress gives you that level of control

- You could sprite some of the images/logos together but again, that may not be something that is easy to do within wordpress.

- If you're not already using the asyc method for google analytics you could switch that over which may help a bit: http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/asyncTracking.html


Try not to compare performance based purely on the grades. They will help you make a given site faster but two different sites may get the same grades and have completely different performance. They'r more of a starting point on the basics - the waterfall is really where you should spend your time once you get used to reading them.

I appreciate all your help and I got MaxCDN up and running....they have great customer support by the way and they helped a lot. Here is how most of my tests are looking now http://www.webpagetest.org/result/100625_HFG/ but some of the USA ones rank an "F" for CDN, overall I am happy with all the improvements. Now I have to figure out how to analyze the waterfall Big Grin!


RE: Start Render Time - pmeenan - 06-26-2010 12:47 PM

Sorry, San Jose and China don't have the latest code installed (which recognizes MaxCDN). Should be updated in the next week. It's a detection problem not a problem with your CDN implementation.

Thanks,

-Pat