4 ms·
>the bandwidth is dominated by the RSS feed Exceptionally low cost per hit, as opposed to overall bandwidth. Overall bandwidth will probably fair off worse as
by bArray 8y ago
>the bandwidth is dominated by the RSS feed
Exceptionally low cost per hit, as opposed to overall bandwidth. Overall bandwidth will probably fair off worse as you say due to the polling nature of RSS. I think in general RSS readers could do a better job of fetching heads and checking whether or not there is a change worth fetching, that would save a tonne of bandwidth.
Also in general, I would be tempted to make an RSS feed more minimalist in terms of content and markup. It should just be a short `<description>` and a link to the main article (which would still allow you to potentially monetize your content or gauge interest more accurately).
>I think it's more likely that for my Wordpress blog the CSS/JS overhead is just not that much
Also, bandwidth is just one resource - potentially each call to a page is a database read, whereas your RSS feed should be static (not sure about the WordPress implementation, but I would hope for static caching with something that doesn't change for long periods of time). I've seen WordPress database lockups with modest amounts of traffic (again, most of the time this could have been easily statically cached - but doesn't appear to be by default).
- jessriedel 8y ago>> the bandwidth is dominated by the RSS feed > Exceptionally low cost per hit, as opposed to overall bandwidth. I don't understand. I'm telling you that my RSS file literally dominates my bandwidth usage in GB. > I think in general RSS readers could do a better job of fetching heads and checking whether or not there is a change worth fetching, that would save a tonne of bandwidth. Yah! Agreed. > It should just be a short `<description>` and a link to the main article (which would still allow you to potentially monetize your content or gauge interest more accurately). No, I want people to be able to read it offline. I'm not trying to monetize anything. > Also, bandwidth is just one resource - potentially each call to a page is a database read I have a simple website. The bandwidth is the dominant cost.
- bArray 8y ago>> I think in general RSS readers could do a better job of fetching heads and checking whether or not there is a change worth fetching, that would save a tonne of bandwidth. > Yah! Agreed. You could also reduce the number of `<item>`s you keep in rotation to a more manageable number. >> It should just be a short `<description>` and a link to the main article (which would still allow you to potentially monetize your content or gauge interest more accurately). > No, I want people to be able to read it offline. I'm not trying to monetize anything. It should still be much more lightweight than it's HTML counterpart. Should be almost nothing to it, next to no markup, no styling, no scripts and a highly compressible piece of data. I don't understand how you're racking up massive bandwidth. Can you put some numbers to it: * Bandwidth usage for RSS * Bandwidth usage for webpage * Hits to RSS * Hits to webpage * Links for both