no additives or preservatives

kacked.com



Speeding Tickets at The Indianapolis 500

Looking at Lubrich's Arts Journal and noticing that there seemed to be a lot of pictures on his frontpage. Wondering about load time. Then I was looking at that site I did for Dave and noticed the bookie picture of him is 60k. Way too big for a black and white image. Anyway all this reminded me that some people look at my site using a dialup connection. Was wondering how total page size affects load time.

Here's a comparison of famous weblogs:

Site:Size:Load Time:
preterosso.mine.nu18k4 sec
preterosso.dyndns.org20k4 sec
rudedog.mine.nu51k10 sec
knurdle.com53k11 sec
lizardspeaks.ath.cx58k12 sec
subminimal.org114k17 sec
kacked.com86k23 sec
lubrichs.mine.nu256k51 sec
(dl times based on 5k/second optimum speed of a 56k modem)
Usability guru Jacob Neilsen writes: "...the minimum goal for response times should therefore be to get pages to users in no more than ten seconds, since that's the limit of people's ability to keep their attention focused while waiting..."

Alertbox: The need for download speed

michael|64.236.243.243|preterosso@adelphia.net|http://preterosso.mine.nu|2|3|19|2002|3|27|23|PM|The Horror, the horror... sunil|128.125.227.62|||2|3|19|2002|6|58|54|PM|The data is intrinsically flawed. The results should be depicted in a statistical format. Mean and Standard deviation information should be included. Basically the load times should be checked throughout the day and over a period of a few days, and then the results should be averaged out sunil|128.125.227.62|||2|3|19|2002|7|3|39|PM|In addition to my previous post, the reason for my suggestion for statistical measures is that internet traffic is intrinsically bursty in nature. Please look at one example of the nature of internet traffic in the following paper published in the IEEE Trans. on ACM:

Mark E. Crovella and Azer Bestavros, "Self-Similarity in World Wide Web Traffic: Evidence and Possible Causes", in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(6):835--846, December 1997 John|192.168.0.2||http://kacked.com|2|3|19|2002|7|13|58|PM|That might be true (it might also not be relevant... heh!) My intention was to stimulate discussion and try to promote understanding of the experience of the dialup user. Certainly for today the results are valid. Tomorrow (if I post and that 16k blockheads graphic scrolls into the archives) the results will be different --but not by that much. You're welcome to take the time for a complete statistical analysis, however, I'm more interested in your day to day experience and impression of load time as a user of these sites. That's where the real data is, since other factors besides page size must be considered, such as: server response time, server downtime, etc. Since there is no easy way of getting or approximating this information the best thing is to garner the impressions of the users. What I'm trying for after all is a favorable impression with my readers, so why not just ask? I guess I wasn't being clear but that's what I was after.

So. That being said, what's your impression of the relative speed at which these pages load? I'm assuming that sometimes you browse these sites using a 56k modem... sunil|128.125.227.62|||2|3|19|2002|7|29|40|PM|The data that you supplied otherwise is quite interesting. I tried loading yours several times and I am getting 10-11 sec now! Quite a difference, and I am using 56K modem. But definitely this stuff you posted is really quite interesting! sunil|65.208.137.206|||4|3|21|2002|3|22|7|PM|BTW I am still wondering as to why my computed numbers (optimal and non-statistical) don't match those numbers that you posted (so it is still meaningful)...see my post at the next topic


Restoring the Server

Had more problems with the power supply for the web server. I'm taking the opportunity to do some other changes. Meanwhile the result is as you see...

Should be back to normal later today or tomorrow.

Lizardspeaks and the burningman picture site are down until I get time to bring them up --also today or tomorrow.

The Lizard|206.117.4.137|||4|3|21|2002|7|48|51|AM|And just when I was gonna post. Doh! sunil|65.208.137.206|||4|3|21|2002|8|22|0|AM|make it so number one michael|64.236.243.243|preterosso@adelphia.net|http://preterosso.mine.nu/|4|3|21|2002|1|25|56|PM|As you probably know:

Your header banner is not there.

There is an error on all your links in the sidebar. John|192.168.0.2||http://kacked.com|4|3|21|2002|1|55|39|PM|Anthony: yeah right. And later "monkeys will fly out of your ass". sunil|65.208.137.206|||4|3|21|2002|2|0|2|PM|Come on....get it to work, we are still waiting. BTW, at 56K and 114K size shouldn't the "optimal" load time be 114/56=2s and not 114/5=23s?? I am getting load times (non-optimal), using statistics, of the order of 10 sec. sunil|65.208.137.206|||4|3|21|2002|2|7|38|PM|With regard to my previous post, let's do some analysis:

(i) 114Kbytes=114*8Kbits=912 Kbits

(ii) modem speed "optimal" = 56 Kbits/sec and NOT 56 Kbytes/sec

(iii) Thus, optimal load times=912/56=16 s.

There needs to be some metric conversions to get this right, eh? John|192.168.0.20||http://kacked.com|4|3|21|2002|2|38|42|PM|Like I was telling you at the Cafe: The modem compresses the data that it can so the text data gets compressed. This accounts for the faster download times that you are observing. I'll bet that if you add up the size of all the images (since they are already compressed ) to 10% of the value for text size that the estimation comes much closer to the observered values. John|192.168.0.20||http://kacked.com|4|3|21|2002|2|47|8|PM|btw, you should be putting these comments with their asscociated post. Once this scrolls into the archives it's not very meaningful to have them under a post about how the server was down... in fact --hey! it's not very meaningful now!

Try to remember that other people are reading the site and that --being the web, there's no telling when or in what context they will do so. They'll understand your comments if they are connected to the post that you are commenting about. sunil|65.208.137.206|||4|3|21|2002|3|21|20|PM|I understand. Just so that this "new+hot" information be made available immediately to the general public I thought of putting it at the top of the site (just my 2c of reasoning for placing it at the top of the site). Next time it'll be placed at the appropriate location...you the boss :) (see this post + additional info at the appropriate topic



Nullam elementum neque a ante. Vestibulum sed urna hendrerit nibh egestas adipiscing. Ut gravida. Vivamus ut dolor. Mauris molestie elementum magna. Maecenas scelerisque feugiat erat. Sed nec risus. Phasellus eu nunc. Curabitur purus. Ut nonummy. Etiam sit amet mi quis felis suscipit tempus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Quisque tincidunt ullamcorper massa. Duis elit.

Phasellus viverra dolor. Sed nulla dui, pharetra ut, faucibus ut, tempor sit amet, elit. Sed ut dui. Nunc quam nisl, sodales ut, molestie sit amet, tristique sit amet, pede. Donec ornare massa nec ligula. Morbi eget nunc in lectus vestibulum porttitor. Integer nec mauris mattis nibh elementum facilisis. Praesent wisi. Nullam eros sem, fringilla nec, venenatis non, ultrices nec, turpis. Curabitur et erat id mi auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus tempus, orci congue tincidunt ornare, felis libero tempor lectus, et lobortis eros lacus vitae lacus. Etiam tempus nunc quis wisi. Duis elementum blandit mauris. Etiam malesuada lorem et sem.

Nullam elementum neque a ante. Vestibulum sed urna hendrerit nibh egestas adipiscing. Ut gravida. Vivamus ut dolor. Mauris molestie elementum magna. Maecenas scelerisque feugiat erat. Sed nec risus. Phasellus eu nunc. Curabitur purus. Ut nonummy. Etiam sit amet mi quis felis suscipit tempus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Quisque tincidunt ullamcorper massa. Duis elit.

Phasellus viverra dolor. Sed nulla dui, pharetra ut, faucibus ut, tempor sit amet, elit. Sed ut dui. Nunc quam nisl, sodales ut, molestie sit amet, tristique sit amet, pede. Donec ornare massa nec ligula. Morbi eget nunc in lectus vestibulum porttitor. Integer nec mauris mattis nibh elementum facilisis. Praesent wisi. Nullam eros sem, fringilla nec, venenatis non, ultrices nec, turpis. Curabitur et erat id mi auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus tempus, orci congue tincidunt ornare, felis libero tempor lectus, et lobortis eros lacus vitae lacus. Etiam tempus nunc quis wisi. Duis elementum blandit mauris. Etiam malesuada lorem et sem.