I'm doing a new site for which I actually have licensed/free fonts for use as #font-face web fonts.
My question is this: as these fonts are also on TypeKit.com, do I actually gain anything from either using them from there vs hosting the fonts myself?
My site will run through CloudFlare and therefore the font files will be cached there as well.
Is there any reason why I should continue to use TypeKit for this particular site?
Best regards,
Michael
There are performance, cost and stability trade-offs when choosing where to host your font files. Font files can make up a large portion of a page filesize and load time. Ideally, you should use a CDN (content delivery network) to speed up load times by serving the files from locations distributed around the world. Both CloudFlare and TypeKit use a CDN. If you host the font files themselves, you can put CloudFlare in front of your server to cache and deliver the files. The really nice thing about CloudFlare is that they don't charge based on pageviews/bandwidth (TypeKit charges by views). If your site suddenly becomes hugely popular, you won't get a huge bill from CloudFlare, while you would with TypeKit. Additionally, all providers have outages every now and then. Some networks have more robust setups than others. I personally respect CloudFlare because they always are extremely upfront about issues and post detailed post-mortems right away.
On another note: CloudFlare usually doesn't cache external resources (such as fonts served by TypeKit) on webpages. Files are only cached if they are originally from a server that's behind CloudFlare.
Related
Have been working on a site and have used Boostrap via MAX CDN by putting
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.7/css/bootstrap.min.css">
in the head section.
Google Pagespeed is showing:
Your page has 1 blocking CSS resources. This causes a delay in rendering your page.
None of the above-the-fold content on your page could be rendered without waiting for the following resources to load. Try to defer or asynchronously load blocking resources, or inline the critical portions of those resources directly in the HTML.
Optimize CSS Delivery of the following:
https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.7/css/bootstrap.min.css
Is there anyway of fixing this?
Thanks
The other answer is too incorrect, so I am writing this if anyone still needs help on this.
CDNs speed up your production websites too, not only your local development environment. Hosting a static file locally on your own host does not solve the Render Blocking issue that pagespeed tool suggests here. A static file hosted locally is still render blocking.
The solution here is inlining the render blocking CSS files completely. However, I would recommend to not inline the resources for several reasons:
Resources delivered over CDN are delivered faster. If you inline them, the entire payload is expected to deliver at slow pace.
Resources delivered separately are cached by browser, while if you inline CSS resources browser will not be able to reuse them across requests.
Resources inlined are compressed on every request along with the other dynamic contents of the file. You cannot take advantage of pre-compression that comes with CDN.
Bigger HTML document due to inlined CSS files is expected to slow when it comes to parsing.
What should one do to resolve this issue? You might think differently, but I would suggest you to do nothing.
Its not that bad if the browser has to wait a little for resources to download. If you are using CDN, chances are visitors will not perceive the download as most of the CDNs now a days have less than 50ms average global latency.
Resources are cached by browser. While pagespeed tool loads fresh resources on every request, please note that browser may be loading some of the resources from cache, completely eliminating the CDN request.
Resources are shared across websites. If you are using Bootstrap from a public CDN, chances are that the same bootstrap file is already available in browser cache of the visitor, that is downloaded when the user visited another website that used bootstrap. This gives 0ms latency and 100% bandwidth saving for that particular resource for even your first time visitors that have no other resources of your site in their browser cache. Browser can now spend the saved bandwidth elsewhere to speed other things up.
Manually inlining external libraries make it little more difficult to keep traces of all inlined copies of the library and makes the edits and updates hard.
Dynamic inlining adds few more disk seeks per request. This just adds to the server load. These IOs can be saved if the files are served separately. Your OS may just cache the files if they are hot enough. Using CDN will completely eliminate this load.
Although not exactly a solution that will remove this pagespeed warning, its possible to reduce the impact of render blocking resources for real visitors (not performance measurement tools):
Serve resources with aggressive compression to reduce the payload size.
Serve resources with immutable cache-control header to tell the browser to confidently store this file for longer period as this is not going to change in the future. If you use bootstrap cdn by pagecdn, these two optimizations are enabled by default.
If you know a file is going to be loaded immediately after a page load, you can use HTTP/2 Server Push to deliver the file before even the browser asks for it. However, if you do this, you will need to make sure that the same files are not aggressively been pushed on every request (that is not a good option as the files should load from browser cache on second request onwards).
Either change the CDN (which will most likely do nothing for you) or, simply store the file locally. This will up your Google Page Speed rate.
Download a copy of the bootstrap file you are using and store it like so root/css/bootstrap.min.css
Where root is your project folder.
CDN's are used mainly for test purposes (instant access to files) or in larger-scale projects which have multiple requirements that can't always be met locally.
Read this thread to better understand.
While the error that Google gives you might not be a serious issue for your project, it is always a good practice to use your resources locally, so that your website may load by itself, without referencing external sources that resemble in a separate query.
Static files = better load times = happy Google.
Which uses less resources while loading a website which uses font-awesome icons ?
using online link :
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.4.0/css/font-awesome.min.css">
or using locally downloaded fontawesome.min.css file and giving its link in html
The main benefit of having them on a CDN is that the files can be downloaded in parallel to files downloaded from your own website. This reduces latency on every page. So, the flip side of this is a pitfall of hosting locally - increased latency. The main reason for that is that browsers are limited in the number of connections that they can make at the same time to the same webserver. In IE6 this was defaulted to 2 concurrent connections to the same domain - shared between all open windows of IE!! In IE8 it is a bit better, defaulting to 6, which is inline with FF, but still, if you have a lot of images and you are not using sprites, you will experience heavy latency.
Using a CDN, I would always set the library version explicitly rather than getting the latest one. This reduces the risk of new versions breaking your code. Not very likely with jQuery, but possible.
The other main benefit of using a CDN is reduced traffic on your site. If you pay per GB or you are on a virtual server with limited resources, you might find that overall site performance increases and hosting costs come down when you farm off some of your content to a public CDN.
from - Benefits vs. Pitfalls of hosting jQuery locally
I have created several html pages using Adobe's Dreamweaver. I was wondering what are the steps that I need to take in order to upload these pages onto a live website. I already purchased a domain name.
Basically, I am a newbie who has no idea how to upload HTML documents onto the web.
You need someone to host your website. The DNS records for your domain name should then be pointed to your hosts web servers on the internet. The host will provide you with FTP information to FTP your files up to the web server which your pages will be served from.
The simplest thing to do is get a server to host your files online. Of course, you can use your own computer to host the files but there are some pros and cons to that. Theres the fact that you can get a lot of space but you need your pc to be on all the time.
Or you can use an online hosting service to host your files. Hosting can be free or paid, and mostly free hosting requires you to use ads on your website. But I'd suggest use x10hosting or 000webhost. Upload all your HTML files (you can log in and upload the files through your internet browser, preferably GOOGLE CHROME, then see your web page come to life on the internet.
There are a load of things I can talk about but I wont go on about SEO and FTP's, just for now use x10hosting if you are looking for something free and of good quality, or use 000webhosting if youre looking for something free and easy.
I am thinking to save server load, i could load common javascript files (jquery src) and maybe certain images from websites like Google (which are almost always never down, and always pretty fast, maybe faster than my server).
Will it save much load?
Thanks!
UPDATE: I am not so much worried about saving bandwidth, as I am reducing Server Load because my server has difficulty when there are a lot of users online, and I think this is because there are too many images/files it loads from my single server.
You might consider putting up another server that does nothing but serve your static files using an ultra efficient web server such as lighttpd
This is known as a content delivery network, and it will help, although you should probably make sure you need one before you go about setting it all up. I have heard okay things about Amazon S3 for this (which Twitter, among other sites, use to host their images and such). Also, you should consider Google's API cloud if you are using any popular javascript libraries.
Well, there are a couple things in principle:
Serving up static resources (.htm files, image files, etc) rarely even make a server breathe hard except under the most demanding of circumstances (thousands of requests in a very short period of time)
Google's network is most likely faster than yours, and most everyone else. ;)
So if you are truly not experiencing any bandwidth problems, I don't think offloading your images, etc will do much for you. However, as you move stuff off to Google, then it frees your server's bandwidth up for more concurrent requests and faster transfer on the existing ones. The only tradeoff here is that clients will experience a slight (most likely unnoticable) initial delay while DNS looks up the other servers and initiates the connection to them.
It really depends on what your server load is like now. Are there lots of small web pages and lots of users? If so, then the 50K taken up by jQuery could mean a lot. If all of your pages are fairly large, and/or you have a small user base, caching jQuery with Google might not help much. Same with the pictures. That said, I have heard anecdotal reports (here on SO) that loading your scripts from Google does indeed provide noticeable performance improvement. I have also heard that Google is not necessarily 100% uptime (though it is close), and when it is down it is damned inconvenient.
If you're suffering from speed problems, putting your scripts at the bottom of the web page can help a lot.
I'm assuming you want to save costs by offloading commonly used resources to the web at large.
What you're suggesting is called Hotlinking.. that means directly linking to other people's content. While it can work in most cases, you do lose control of the content, that means your website may change without your input. Since image hosted on google are scoured from other websites, the images may be copyrighted, causing some (potential) concern, or they may have anti-hotlinking measures that may block the images from your webpage.
If you're just working on a hobby website, you can consider hosting your resources on a free web account to save bandwidth.
We have several images and PDF documents that are available via our website. These images and documents are stored in source control and are copied content on deployment. We are considering creating a separate image server to put our stock images and PDF docs on - thus significantly decreasing the bulk of our deployment package.
Does anyone have experience with this approach?
I am wondering about any "gotchas" - like XSS issues and/or browser issues delivering content from the alternate sub-domain?
Pro:
Many browsers will only allocate two sockets to downloading assets from a single host. So if index.html is downloaded from www.domain.com and it references 6 image files, 3 javascript files, and 3 CSS files (all on www.domain.com), the browser will download them 2 at a time, with the other blocking until a socket is free.
If you pull the 6 image files off onto a separate host, say images.domain.com, you get an extra two sockets dedicated to download your images. This parallelizes the asset download process so, in theory, your page could render twice as fast.
Con:
If you're using SSL, you would need to either get an additional single-host SSL certificate for images.domain.com or a wildcard SSL certificate for *.domain.com (matches any subdomain). Failure to do so will generate a warning in the browser saying the page contains mixed secure and insecure content.
You will also, with a different domain, not send the cookies data with every request. This can increase performance.
Another thing not yet mentioned is that you can use different web servers to serve different sorts of content. For example, your static content could be served via lighttpd or nginx while still serving your dynamic content off Apache.
Pros:
-load balancing
-isolating a different functionality
Cons:
-more work (when you create a page on the main site you would have to maintain the resources on the separate server)
Things like XSS is a problem of code not sanitizing input (or output for that matter). The only issue that could arise is if you have sub-domain specific cookies that are used for authentication.. but that's really a trivial fix.
If you're serving HTTPS and you serve an image from an HTTP domain then you'll get browser security alert warnings pop up when you use it.
So if you do HTTPS, you'll need to buy HTTPS for your image domain awell if you don't want to annoy the hell out of your users :)
There are other ways around this, but it's not particularly in the scope of this answer - it was just a warning!