Lingerance
2007-08-02, 03:53 AM
Format of this post is. . .
Time to implement: Description/actions
Note: Almost all the suggestions here involve HTML; also the firefox plug-in yslow rates this site as an F (yslow is for page loading times primarily but some of the things help bandwidth too).
Also, the main forum page is about 9KB of HTML alone, presuming the forum is the most accessed part of the site each KB saved is about 10% of bandwidth saved.
~5 Minutes: Move the CSS to it's own file, the web-server should know to set the cache settings for a CSS file to a decent setting, if not make a script output the CSS file with the headers for heaving caching (iirc php header() documentation has this information in one of the posts). This should save about 1KB per forum page request.
2-8 hours: adjust the HTML of the site so it's less bulky, a quick look at the source shows you're in-lining CSS into the HTML which is not that bad, but excessive use of it can rob bandwidth. Also DIVs tend to be more compact HTML wise than TABLEs are. This should save anywhere from 500B to 3KB.
I'll post an example of the size reduction when the caffeine will let me sleep, and I re-awaken. I should have fallen asleep 4 hours ago. . .
Time to implement: Description/actions
Note: Almost all the suggestions here involve HTML; also the firefox plug-in yslow rates this site as an F (yslow is for page loading times primarily but some of the things help bandwidth too).
Also, the main forum page is about 9KB of HTML alone, presuming the forum is the most accessed part of the site each KB saved is about 10% of bandwidth saved.
~5 Minutes: Move the CSS to it's own file, the web-server should know to set the cache settings for a CSS file to a decent setting, if not make a script output the CSS file with the headers for heaving caching (iirc php header() documentation has this information in one of the posts). This should save about 1KB per forum page request.
2-8 hours: adjust the HTML of the site so it's less bulky, a quick look at the source shows you're in-lining CSS into the HTML which is not that bad, but excessive use of it can rob bandwidth. Also DIVs tend to be more compact HTML wise than TABLEs are. This should save anywhere from 500B to 3KB.
I'll post an example of the size reduction when the caffeine will let me sleep, and I re-awaken. I should have fallen asleep 4 hours ago. . .