4 ms·
I'm not sure I'm reaching the same conclusion. - Chrome is taking 618ms to load / vs 412 ms on FF. - FF loads all the .css & .js at 320ms as well as first 8 i
by burgreblast 12y ago
I'm not sure I'm reaching the same conclusion.
- Chrome is taking 618ms to load / vs 412 ms on FF.
- FF loads all the .css & .js at 320ms as well as first 8 imgs
- CH loads all the .css & .js at ~600ms as well as first 8 imgs
Before chalking up the advantage to dependency-based prioritization (which may be a good thing-I don't know) I would first explain why fetching "/" is so much slower on chrome.
- kazuho 12y agoAs described in note 5, "the network chart of Chrome includes a 0.2 second block before initianting the TCP connection, which has been subtracted from the numbers written in this blog text". That explains the differences of the numbers on the charts you pointed out.
- burgreblast 12y agoThanks, I missed that. Might be worth re-running the tests without the block so the graphs can line up better and we don't need to subtract the 200ms? As you well know, implications of latency or packet loss are hard to extrapolate on real-world rendering.
- kazuho 12y agoUnfortunately the block was always found on the test machine. The test was conducted using a VM running running on a host on which the web browsers were run, so there were no noise or packet loss; the results were reproducible.