4 ms·
Hi, This is awesome and thanks for posting it. Question: Towards the end of your post you mention your amazement regarding how much of non-image content is ac
by Maciek416 17y ago
Hi,
This is awesome and thanks for posting it.
Question: Towards the end of your post you mention your amazement regarding how much of non-image content is accounted for by JavaScript code, citing 200K Facebook libraries and such. Could you comment a little bit about the mix between CDN-hosted JS and locally-hosted JS?
From your data, would you be able to speculate on the amount of efficiency gain (in bytes transfered and average latency across the visitors to the top 1000) that could be had if we aggressively re-configured this entire mass of sites to use jQuery/Prototype/etc from a single location rather than on their own sites?
Thanks
[edit: formatting]
- jgrahamc 17y agoI don't have a dead easy way to extract that information in general, unfortunately. It's something that I do look at the jQuery and YUI (to see whether they are taking the hosted or self-hosted versions), but for generic JavaScript I don't have CDN information.
- Maciek416 17y agoPerhaps you could count how many references you see to, for example, jQuery (without worrying where it's hosted by those sites). Then assume all of those sites loaded it from Google. Then take what you know about the traffic to those sites and obtain a rough estimate of two extremes: everybody hosting locally vs. everybody hosting in a single location. Possible?
- Maciek416 17y agoAddendum: Another interesting thing would be to load every single piece of js from all of these sites and compare it against a minified version of itself.