2 ms·
For the curl testing I did: for prefix in article amp/article; do echo $(for i in {1..9} ; do (time curl -sS https://unlikekinds.com/$prefix
by jefftk 8y ago
For the curl testing I did:
for prefix in article amp/article; do
echo $(for i in {1..9} ; do
(time curl -sS https://unlikekinds.com/$prefix/google-amp-page-speed > \
/dev/null) 2>&1 | grep real | awk '{print $2}'
done)
done
Do you see the same results?
I shouldn't have focused so much on the difference between the AMP and non-AMP times, though. The main thing I wanted to point out is that if your server is taking almost a second to return html there's a lot you could do to improve pageloads right there.
- whalabi 8y agoI hear ya. It's rails running (with its database) on a single small VPS, so I'm pretty pleased with how it's running, particularly given the load yesterday. And thanks for sort of fact checking, for a second I thought whoa, that could be it, all on the server side. Don't think it is though. I might set up some performance testing on a local copy to check the difference between the two just to be sure (especially because the article ended up getting a lot of attention.) That's some pretty badass shell scripting, I'll give it a try in a bit.
- jefftk 8y agoIf you put varnish or something in front of rails to cache your responses you could probably cut 400-600ms off your loading time.