4 ms·
Yep, still valid, cookies are sent. But performance-wise if the cookie is just a session id then maybe sending a few hundred bytes extra with each resource req
by AhtiK 12y ago
Yep, still valid, cookies are sent.
But performance-wise if the cookie is just a session id then maybe sending a few hundred bytes extra with each resource request doesn't even show up in profiling.
With cookies the number of connections opened remains the same, amount of bytes received remains the same.
Most of the network time with a pageload is wasted on opening a connection for each resource and streaming the output, if there's a need to optimize then instead of getting rid of cookies it's better to concat resources etc or move to SPDY.
OR, just buy that second domain for static content if client-side performance becomes that important and sending unneeded cookies feels like a waste :)
- marcosdumay 12y agoOdds are your client will send those cookies by some ethernet network, that'll pad every package into a minimum size much larger than the request anyway. And if you get a client that isn't using ethernet (maybe GSM, what is its minimum package size?), they'll probably use large TCP packets too, and pad at that level.
- justizin 12y agoyour conjecture shows a clear lack of having spent any time optimizing websites to respond in less than one second.
- skybrian 12y agoLarge websites maintained by many teams tend to accumulate cookies over time. When you have dozens of cookies for various one-off purposes, getting rid of a cookie means tracking down all the places where it might be used. It's easier if it's set on a subdomain.