I'm still stuck on dial-up connectivity, like yet roughly half the private Internet connections in the U.S.
Page size in general has gotten ridiculous. Most sites seem to think that since the page loads for them in just a couple of seconds when testing a new layout that it's a cool one. They seem oblivious to the fact that they're operating on either an internal network (probably gigabit ethernet) or a good high-speed/low-latency connection and that perhaps as much as half of their would-be visitors can't even get as much as low DSL speeds. Don't get me started on the choice of content they stuff in their pages (flash, javascript, etc. and that often derived directly from a database with a URL containing all manner of "?", "&", etc. which makes the content uncacheable (even when they
don't configure the server to send "no cache" headers!)).
I've largely circumvented the dial-up problem by running a
web cache "this" side of the modem. Largely, that is, except for the uncacheable stuff mentioned above.
This web site now seems to be hosted somewhere very near New Jersey. It's been a while since I've last checked but it was previously hosted somewhere near Green Bay, WI.
A traceroute gives us some help in determining that. The interesting part (where the broadwing.net network picks up the traffic (in Chicago, for me)) follows:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
7 bb2-p13-1.emhril.ameritech.net (151.164.191.114) 148.872 ms
8 ex2-p5-0.eqchil.sbcglobal.net (151.164.42.139) 308.777 ms
9 151.164.249.90 (151.164.249.90) 138.757 ms
10 ge-1-2-0.a1.chcg.broadwing.net (216.140.14.161) 129.253 ms
11 p5-0.gnwd.broadwing.net (216.140.15.141) 138.620 ms
12 p3-0.c0.nwyk.broadwing.net (216.140.16.210) 168.815 ms
13 so7-0-0.a1.nwaknj.broadwing.net (216.140.8.198) 138.875 ms
14 g1-2-0.core2.jfk.foc.broadwing.net (216.140.10.110) 158.770 ms
15 g0-1-0-20.core1.jfk.foc.broadwing.net (63.121.100.1) 158.752 ms
16 treebuzz.com (64.68.147.180) 138.485 ms
</pre><hr />
Locale hints can be derived from the host names of the routers; the portion of the name just prior to the main network name.
Typically, the slowness of the (a) site will be a combination of several factors. The amount of traffic on the outward-facing connection for the web server process; the load on the computer running the web server process; the amount of traffic on the (internal, usually) network between the web server and database processes; and the load on the computer running the database process. This is discounting, of course, the amount of traffic on the network segments leading up to the public interface for the web server.
I'd noticed a painful delay in interaction with this site several days ago while away from home and on an otherwise kick-áss connection. Today it seems quite responsive so far.
Part of the problem with forums such as this has already been touched-upon in the thread starter above. Oftentimes users will be sitting on a high-speed connection and running their browser window full-screen (why in the world anyone would want to do
that is beyond me; I mean, why use a windowing environment with all the overhead if you're going to essentially be using your computer as a console?). They think they've got a pretty good handle on using a computer, even if they don't, and they think nothing of plastering a bunch of (large) images into their posts. Since it takes only a moment to load and causes no side-scrolling issues when (if?) they check the post before submitting they think they've done well. As we all know, this is often not the case at all.
Oh, well. The world would probably be a pretty boring place if there wasn't at least
some diversity. I just wish a greater degree of common sense and consideration were generally exhibited.
