dcsimg
www.webdeveloper.com
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: What are some fast image hosts?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    701

    What are some fast image hosts?

    I tried uploading all of my image files to Photobucket and use them in my <img> tags. This increased my website's speed from 7 seconds to 4.5 seconds. This was because Photobucket's server is faster than my server.

    Is there an even faster image host?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Bucharest, ROMANIA
    Posts
    15,428
    Quote Originally Posted by narutodude000 View Post
    I tried uploading all of my image files to Photobucket and use them in my <img> tags. This increased my website's speed from 7 seconds to 4.5 seconds. This was because Photobucket's server is faster than my server.
    Not a bright idea. What if the Photobucket server(s) fail(s)? As a general rule, the external files should stay on the same domain as the HTML documents. There are many browsers which have, as a precaution option tool/addon, the possibility to block the images' loading if those images are not in the same domain as the document.

    If your images are loaded in several seconds, that means either you are using too many images (or too big) or your images are not compressed at all (or not properly compressed). Use a tool (such as Photoshop, or freeware tools) in order to compress your images and bring them to a reasonable "weight" (usually no more than several tens of KB)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    701
    It's because my server is slow. My images add up to 92kb.

    I'd assume Photobucket's server rarely fails since it's a large website.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    This is actually a common practice for large-scale websites. Putting your static content on external, dedicated content servers drastically increases page load times for a number of reasons. And the practice is actually recommended for high-traffic sites or sites with large payloads.

    However, I'm not sure how typical it is to rely on something like photobucket. Usually, if your site's traffic or payload hits that critical point, you'd start using a Content Delivery Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network

    Though, sites like blogger use external asset/image services by default. Blogger, for instance, uses google's photo sharing service. Same company, of course--but different servers under different domains that are dedicated to serving images.


    ADDENDUM: However, if you're seeing load times greater than a few seconds for a payload of 100kb or less, it sounds like the issue isn't server-side. Either that, or the page itself is taking that long to load--which is an issue that can't be resolved by distributing your assets.

    Can you give us a URL?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    This is more targeted to web development than the wiki link: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#cdn

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    701
    My website/blog is http://linksku.com

    I've heard of CDN, but I can't afford multiple servers. I'm currently using a $40/year hosting service, which is the lowest possible quality (other than free hosting).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    The site actually loads pretty quickly for me--renders in less than a second. So, I think the slow load times are due to a slow, mis-configured, or misrouted connection on your end. Do you experience the poor performance all the time, or just during peak times?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Actually, now that I click around a bit, I'm seeing some occasional spikes in load time on the initial pageload. The data transfer doesn't appear to be the issue though. It appears to be an latency issue--could be that either certain pages are too CPU intensive or the server is simply being overworked. (shared environment, I'm guessing)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    701
    I'm using a caching plugin, so I guess that's why it's fast. The slow pages probably weren't cached yet.

    When I actually open my website using a browser, it loads it about 2 seconds. When I said it took 7s for it to load, that was my result from a loading speed test.

    Here's the test: http://tools.pingdom.com/?url=linksk...pe=0&save=true

    Edit: I noticed your comment about having too much spam. I added a math question to reduce spam (you must be logged out to see it), I'll try adding rel="nofollow" if this doesn't work.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    We're getting a touch off the primary topic, but that still seems like somewhat worrisome performance. Are you using shared hosting? VPS? Dedicated? In-home?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    701
    Sorry this reply is late, I had problems with my Internet connection. It is now fixed.

    I'm using JustHost shared hosting.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    14
    Bite the bullet and go for something around $5-$15 a month. May be just a get what you pay for job. Standard shared hosting should be as fast as I've found photobucket.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    701
    I tried hosting an image on Google. The image loaded a lot faster than before (I used pingdom.com). However, Google only allow images up to 800px. Are there other fast sites?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles