3 ms·
Turns Out Compression is Good for Image Heavy Sites
- aw3c2 17y agoI tried reading it twice but all the bullshit bingo keywords made it impossible for me the get the conclusion. If compression makes the data you have to send smaller, then use compression, duh. Also submitter(-ess) seems to be using hn only to submit his/her own stories.
- almost 17y agoA female submitter is still a submitter, no need to add "ess" to the end.
- gjm11 17y agoThe key point is actually taken from someone else's blog post at http://jetnexus.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-does-application-acceleration-mean.html http://jetnexus.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-does-application-a..., and it's this: You might think that there's no point using transparent compression for a website most of whose content is in images, since image files generally compress poorly if at all. However, 1. those images are presumably embedded in web pages, and if compressing those gets them to the user faster then it's a win; 2. many of those images will already be in the browser cache, so the fraction of your traffic that's in images may be smaller than you think.
- gjm11 17y ago> Also submitter(-ess) seems to be using hn only to submit his/her own stories. Now now, that's not quite fair. On three occasions she's also used HN to comment on her own stories.
- volomike 17y agoWorking with a sysop the other day in my new client's company, he said he refuses to permit Apache compression because it sucks up too much RAM. I said it also reduces network bandwidth, but he didn't care. What have you found with Apache compression? Good? Bad?