3 ms·
If your server can't handle serving up 1-200 images at same time, your server sort of doesn't deserve to be on the internet. Any server today should be able to
by njharman 11y ago
If your server can't handle serving up 1-200 images at same time, your server sort of doesn't deserve to be on the internet.
Any server today should be able to saturate it's network connection serving static content.
- amelius 11y agoIf there are 1000 simultaneous requests (from many users), 1-200 images become 1,000-200,000 images. I hope you see now why your argument is flawed.
- njharman 11y agoNope. My argument "Any server today should be able to saturate it's network connection serving static content." still stands. Which I wrote as clarification to stop someone from thinking / posting what you did. It doesn't matter how many requests for same images. Any server should be to fill network link serving static content. Even slow Apache could saturate 100Mbps 15! years ago. https://www.devside.net/articles/apache-performance-tuning https://www.devside.net/articles/apache-performance-tuning Those 200 images all fit into memory. All the server is doing is answering requests and copying those to the network interface. No disk IO, no computation, maybe not even the copy if server/nic can do zero-copy.
- amelius 11y agoI understand what you say. But consider the server as being the machine including the network interface. Then, still, the pipes are going to be congested sooner with multiple images instead of a single image per page.