Comments on: Gzipping, Duh! http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/ A journal of art, thoughts, and projects by Jason Beaird. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:42:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jason Beaird http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-165 Jason Beaird Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:19:50 +0000 http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-165 Thank you for your input Edward! ...and a "So THERE!" to you Birdman! :) Thank you for your input Edward! …and a “So THERE!” to you Birdman! :)

]]> By: Edward http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-164 Edward Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:29:00 +0000 http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-164 Hi, I'm the author of the original post on my blog. I'd just like to point out, that there is a slight increase in cpu usage, but nothing negligible. The significant bandwidth offset justifies this many times over. Many large sites use it, and many large PHP scripts use it, especially the forums. I'm sure if it caused a high burden on the CPU then, they wouldn't choose to use it. Hi, I’m the author of the original post on my blog. I’d just like to point out, that there is a slight increase in cpu usage, but nothing negligible. The significant bandwidth offset justifies this many times over. Many large sites use it, and many large PHP scripts use it, especially the forums. I’m sure if it caused a high burden on the CPU then, they wouldn’t choose to use it.

]]> By: Jason Beaird http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-163 Jason Beaird Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:32:42 +0000 http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-163 Yea, I hear ya Nathan, but I don't see anyone out there giving Gzip bad reviews. If the bandwidth to processing time trade-off sucked then noone would use it. Not that my webhost has any processor cycles to spare on compressing my pages, but you have to admit that a 66% decrease in transfered data is pretty decent. Yea, I hear ya Nathan, but I don’t see anyone out there giving Gzip bad reviews. If the bandwidth to processing time trade-off sucked then noone would use it. Not that my webhost has any processor cycles to spare on compressing my pages, but you have to admit that a 66% decrease in transfered data is pretty decent.

]]> By: birdman http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-162 birdman Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:57:05 +0000 http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-162 Ahh, I guess that is what partly what the Leknor site you linked to does. To bad that when I tried to read it before commenting it was really slow to respond.... Ahh, I guess that is what partly what the Leknor site you linked to does. To bad that when I tried to read it before commenting it was really slow to respond….

]]> By: birdman http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-161 birdman Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:53:58 +0000 http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-161 That is all fine and dandy with just one problem: mondo CPU overhead. It definatley will decrease bandwidth usage but at the penalty of more processing time for the server to respond to requests, and more processing on the client to unzip the request. If the connection is slow it will probably result in a speedup since you are reducing the cost at the bottleneck, on a fast connection this could slow down the apparent response time. Anyone have a graph response time vs bandwidth? That is all fine and dandy with just one problem: mondo CPU overhead. It definatley will decrease bandwidth usage but at the penalty of more processing time for the server to respond to requests, and more processing on the client to unzip the request.

If the connection is slow it will probably result in a speedup since you are reducing the cost at the bottleneck, on a fast connection this could slow down the apparent response time. Anyone have a graph response time vs bandwidth?

]]> By: Jason Beaird http://jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-160 Jason Beaird Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:46:48 +0000 http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/gzipping-duh/#comment-160 I checked <a href="http://leknor.com/code/gziped.php" rel="nofollow">this site</a> before gzipping my home page, and apparently gzipping reduced the file to 34% of its original size - that's down 66%! Awesome! I checked this site before gzipping my home page, and apparently gzipping reduced the file to 34% of its original size – that’s down 66%! Awesome!

]]>