Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 08/22/07 18:27

FFMG wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently compressing the output of all my pages, (still on the
> beta site so I am not 100% sure of the impact).
> But I have no idea if I am wasting my server CPU time or not, or more
> importantly if I am making any difference to my visitor experience.
> Some pages cam be rather large and they are compressed, (from 160K to
> 15k),
>
> But does anybody know if compressing is worth the effort?
>
> And if it is worth it, why do sites like Joomla offer it, but don't
> make it default?
> Especially given that they test if the browser supports it, (this is
> what $_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING'] is for after all.
>
> FFMG
>
>

It depends on a lot of things.

Compressing takes CPU, and in general the larger the output the more
cycles required. And it depends on the browser sending a header
indicating it can accept compressed files.

Images don't normally compress well, so if you're looking to save
bandwidth on a lot of images, forget it.

But if your site is mainly text, compression will cut your bandwidth and
speed loading of your pages - especially if the client is using a slow
link (i.e. dialup). And text compression normally is pretty fast (and
efficient).

You need to look at you CPU load. If you're on a shared host, they may
or may not like the compression, for instance. Of course, if it's your
own server, then cpu load isn't as much of a concern, but bandwidth may be.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]