7 ms·

Are you comparing search with a static page load ? Just compare the google page load if you want to compare with that ?

james412 6y ago
A cold cache google page load here pushes 725kb just to render a logo and search box. To avoid fingerprinting my cache is always cold. Google search is a huge dog
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Considering the functionality, what would be your limit to keep google from being considered a "huge dog"?
  - james412 6y ago
    42 links, a text box, vector logo, 20kb and that's generous Autocomplete function, dropdown menu JS, 10kb max Considering this page is viewed by millions, and doesn't even contain the logic to render search results
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      I was linked https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite, and even without autocomplete or dropdown functionality, it comes in at 8.5 kB, so I'd say that the 10 kB goal is pretty aggressive.
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    Well compare it to: https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      That seems unfair, considering there is no lite google equivalent. The full duckduckgo site still comes in lighter (3/4 of the size), and includes a lot more media, so it's still better than Google.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Reverting to their own search site from 10 years ago?
    - james412 6y ago
      You might be pleased to notice Google Scholar is pretty much still the old design, such a breeze to use
sushshshsh 6y ago
I'm just asking you to do the test, because it was forced on me for 6 months of my life :) Firstly, cr.yp.to is hosted on some really basic consumer grade hardware most likely and has to make an additional hop through Tonga of all places for DNS resolution. Of course, the page size of cr.yp.to is very small and does not involve any other communication with other servers to deliver a request. But Google has x million machines, x million miles of fiber, x million sticks of ram, and the page size on google also isn't terribly huge. And it's serving a cached result usually, the robot has already scraped it. But still, because of the number of network pings that serving a single google search takes, it is extremely common on cell phones to lose service for a millisecond and completely destroy the bidirectional connection between you and Google, and your mobile browser will just sit there hanging forever until you force restart it.
- jkaptur 6y ago
  Does using the .to TLD really imply that the request has to make a hop through Tonga? I'm not a DNS expert, but that doesn't sound right. (I ask as the owner of a .so site...)
  - sushshshsh 6y ago
    I also am not an expert, but Dan J Bernstein (the owner of cr.yp.to) states that his website --- er actually hold on, I think I misremembered the story from his site. Let me paste it here: 2000-11-16: The .to administrators destroy yp.to for reasons that have never been explained. See more here: https://cr.yp.to/serverinfo.html https://cr.yp.to/serverinfo.html
    - codegladiator 6y ago
      That's quite an interesting page. They had a recent outage after 3 years > 2017.07.24 roughly 21:50 to 22:10: Unexplained network outage at UIC. > 2020.04.20 roughly noon GMT: Power outage at UIC.
      - sushshshsh 6y ago

A cold cache google page load here pushes 725kb just to render a logo and search box. To avoid fingerprinting my cache is always cold. Google search is a huge dog

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Considering the functionality, what would be your limit to keep google from being considered a "huge dog"?
- james412 6y ago
  42 links, a text box, vector logo, 20kb and that's generous Autocomplete function, dropdown menu JS, 10kb max Considering this page is viewed by millions, and doesn't even contain the logic to render search results
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    I was linked https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite, and even without autocomplete or dropdown functionality, it comes in at 8.5 kB, so I'd say that the 10 kB goal is pretty aggressive.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  Well compare it to: https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    That seems unfair, considering there is no lite google equivalent. The full duckduckgo site still comes in lighter (3/4 of the size), and includes a lot more media, so it's still better than Google.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Reverting to their own search site from 10 years ago?
  - james412 6y ago
    You might be pleased to notice Google Scholar is pretty much still the old design, such a breeze to use

sushshshsh 6y ago

I'm just asking you to do the test, because it was forced on me for 6 months of my life :) Firstly, cr.yp.to is hosted on some really basic consumer grade hardware most likely and has to make an additional hop through Tonga of all places for DNS resolution. Of course, the page size of cr.yp.to is very small and does not involve any other communication with other servers to deliver a request. But Google has x million machines, x million miles of fiber, x million sticks of ram, and the page size on google also isn't terribly huge. And it's serving a cached result usually, the robot has already scraped it. But still, because of the number of network pings that serving a single google search takes, it is extremely common on cell phones to lose service for a millisecond and completely destroy the bidirectional connection between you and Google, and your mobile browser will just sit there hanging forever until you force restart it.

jkaptur 6y ago
Does using the .to TLD really imply that the request has to make a hop through Tonga? I'm not a DNS expert, but that doesn't sound right. (I ask as the owner of a .so site...)
- sushshshsh 6y ago
  I also am not an expert, but Dan J Bernstein (the owner of cr.yp.to) states that his website --- er actually hold on, I think I misremembered the story from his site. Let me paste it here: 2000-11-16: The .to administrators destroy yp.to for reasons that have never been explained. See more here: https://cr.yp.to/serverinfo.html https://cr.yp.to/serverinfo.html
  - codegladiator 6y ago
    That's quite an interesting page. They had a recent outage after 3 years > 2017.07.24 roughly 21:50 to 22:10: Unexplained network outage at UIC. > 2020.04.20 roughly noon GMT: Power outage at UIC.
    - sushshshsh 6y ago