|
Home > Archive > Apache Server configuration support > September 2004 > Apache appears to be serving up images slowly
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Apache appears to be serving up images slowly
|
|
|
| My server has been working for about a year an a half w/o any issues at all.
Then, for no apparent reason (please note that I say apparent), images are
slow loading and the browser hangs/times out. The page generation times
have not changed. It's just that now you can see the images referenced in
the browser status bar as they load much slower than they ever have. In
addition, the browser (IE, FF, Opera) will then hang, usually on the last
one but often times at the beginning too. Eventually, most of the time, the
hang releases. Now for the kicker. If I hit refresh to try to reload and
get pass the hang, it usually hangs even earlier, and if I hit refresh again
before the load has finished, I get a permanent hang and then no DNS
resolution! It's as if I have been temporarily 'banned'. The disconnect
lasts from 3 to 5 minutes and I cannot get to my server during these times.
I can ping and tracert, but HTTP, SSH, and FTP will not connect. My host
swears they have not implemented any throttle or dDos type filters. I am
totally at a loss here. Any suggestions? If you have a chance, try to
replicate this behavior at http://ravenphpscripts.com . Thank you.
| |
| Davide Bianchi 2004-09-15, 10:43 am |
| On 2004-09-15, gf <gfraley5@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My server has been working for about a year an a half w/o any issues at all.
> Then, for no apparent reason (please note that I say apparent), images are
> slow loading and the browser hangs/times out.
Your site appear quite slow, but mostly because there are dozens of
images, animated crap, JScript and so on, for the rest, it looks ok to
me. Since you gave no information whatsoever about what kind of
server you run it on, logs and the like, I can only think that is
a problem due to some images and/or your client/connection.
Davide
--
These days the necessities of life cost you about three times what they
used to, and half the time they aren't even fit to drink.
| |
|
| P4-2.4ghz Dual XEON with hyperthreading - 1 gig ram. And excuse me but
there is no 'animated crap' as you so rudely put it. There is 1 small
flash logo (40k). The other images total about 100k and as I said,
everything had been working great. The page generation time has not
changed and is very respectable. There is very little JavaScript, not
JScript which is Microsoft's flavor, except for the expanding Forum
listings. Prior to posting this, I have turned that block completely
off (as well as all of them) and it matters not to the slow loading
images problem. I am not a noob nor a rookie (35 years in System's
Programming) and several years running LAMP servers and applications,
so please respond with professionalism or don't bother responding at
all. Now, can we get past your editorial and biased, innacurate
assessment of the problem and get back to the subject?
Thanks.
Davide Bianchi <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message news:<slrnckg9gi.23q.davideyeahsure@fogg.onlyforfun.net>...
> On 2004-09-15, gf <gfraley5@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Your site appear quite slow, but mostly because there are dozens of
> images, animated crap, JScript and so on, for the rest, it looks ok to
> me. Since you gave no information whatsoever about what kind of
> server you run it on, logs and the like, I can only think that is
> a problem due to some images and/or your client/connection.
>
> Davide
| |
|
| "gf" <gfraley5@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:AaV1d.796$0i5.333@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> My server has been working for about a year an a half w/o any issues at
all.
> Then, for no apparent reason (please note that I say apparent), images are
> slow loading and the browser hangs/times out. The page generation times
> have not changed. It's just that now you can see the images referenced in
> the browser status bar as they load much slower than they ever have.
For IE or FF to say 'Done' after hitting F5 takes a quiet reasonable 8 s
here: about 50 files for a total 430 kB downloaded via 2Mbps ADSL takes
about 2.2 s, adding 50 times a ping response of 110 ms totals to 7.7 s.
Re-hitting enter at the URLbar returns 'Done' in the blink of an eye, just
showing off the benifite of browser's chaching.
> In
> addition, the browser (IE, FF, Opera) will then hang, usually on the last
> one but often times at the beginning too.
Hangupish behaviour has been seen where cookie acceptance popups were not
noticed as they did not steal focus ...
> Eventually, most of the time, the hang releases.
> Now for the kicker. If I hit refresh to try to reload and
> get pass the hang, it usually hangs even earlier, and if I hit refresh
again
> before the load has finished, I get a permanent hang and then no DNS
> resolution!
Just to excluded some options: add your server to your /etc/host file
> It's as if I have been temporarily 'banned'. The disconnect
> lasts from 3 to 5 minutes and I cannot get to my server during these
times.
> I can ping and tracert, but HTTP, SSH, and FTP will not connect.
Ping by name or IP; HTTP by IP may fail if you're on a named virtual.
HansH
| |
|
| gf wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> P4-2.4ghz Dual XEON with hyperthreading - 1 gig ram. And excuse me but
> there is no 'animated crap' as you so rudely put it. There is 1 small
> flash logo (40k). The other images total about 100k and as I said,
> everything had been working great. The page generation time has not
> changed and is very respectable. There is very little JavaScript, not
> JScript which is Microsoft's flavor, except for the expanding Forum
> listings. Prior to posting this, I have turned that block completely
> off (as well as all of them) and it matters not to the slow loading
> images problem. I am not a noob nor a rookie (35 years in System's
> Programming) and several years running LAMP servers and applications,
> so please respond with professionalism or don't bother responding at
> all. Now, can we get past your editorial and biased, innacurate
> assessment of the problem and get back to the subject?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Davide Bianchi <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
> news:<slrnckg9gi.23q.davideyeahsure@fogg.onlyforfun.net>...
Works fine in Mozilla 1.4 under Mandrake Linux. The site responds quickly
and reloads ok too.
Eric
| |
|
| "Harrie" <dinges_danges_donges@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:414cdffa$0$10528$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> HansH said the following on 19/09/2004 01:28:
> I don't actually see on the page that a browser renders it after having
> received the HTML and CSS, but I know that's right.
<quote>
TOTAL_CSS - Congratulations, the total number of external CSS files on this
page is 1 . Because external CSS files must be in the HEAD of your HTML
document, they must load first before any BODY content displays. Although
they are cached, CSS files slow down the initial display of your page.
</quote>
> However, we were talking about the page and I think that
> including the illustrations.
> "The page generation time has not changed and is very respectable."
> ^^^^
Isn't that the time spent at the server to compose -using SSI, CGI or
otherwise- its HTML output?
by a[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't like dictations myself, but you can see this as a guidance to
> good HTML authoring. Most people don't even realise that they're
> discriminating e.g. visually impaired people.
> If someone wants a selected audience, why put it on the www?
Do you read _all_ article in the weekly door to door flyers and alike??
Should all of the world population read this newsgroup??
well[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
next[vbcol=seagreen]
> Strange, CSS should be cached once it's loaded.
It's beyond caching, I think. Apparently the rendering engine is blanking
the screen at unload, time spent to parse the styles is making that
noticable to the user. Come to think of it, latest FF does not blank ...
leaving phantom checkmarks in checkboxes and forgetting to reset option
lists ...
> Please don't make me shiver more, I want to go to sleep in a few moments
> time and what you say may give me a nightmare (or two).
You'ld better continue reading next morning ... ;-)
> FRAME/IFRAME .. they're evil.
Lovely evil that is ... once you solved cross browser the race conditions
between cross frame operating javascripts ... (re)loading a hidden iframe
via onchange, onLoad replacing a form at its parent to have earlier choices
limit further selections (no function lost if Javascript are disabled...)
> But the scrollbars also apear with "overflow: scroll" (which I don't
> like either), so maybe you have a point, I'm not sure yet.
<joke> It seems you prefere layers ... </joke>
brands[vbcol=seagreen]
version1.1[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, it was a real mess. But now since most browsers use doctype
> sniffing to set the rendering mode to Quirks or Standard Compliance Mode
The very <!DOCTYPE > has in its early days depended on the error recorvery
of , by now pre-historical, browsers by partially matching <!-- -->. That is
the best example of an evolving world: tomorrow yesterday's abuse is a rule
.....
> it's much better and therefor the time has come to practise good
authoring.
As discussed, good authoring must differentiate between true errors and
recommended extra's. The authoring tools in this thread are just too strict
and did unjustice to the OP.
HansH
|
|
|
|
|