Hello wget community, *Goal* My goal is to download a single webpage to be fully functional offline in the same time it takes a browser to request and show the page.
*Problem* The following command downloads a page and makes it fully functional offline, but it takes approximately 35 seconds where the browser requests and shows the page in about 5 seconds. Can someone please help me understand why my *wget* command is taking *so much longer* and how I can make it faster? Or is there any locations or chat groups where I can seek help? Sincere thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide. *wget --page-requisites --span-hosts --convert-links --adjust-extension --execute robots=off --user-agent Mozilla --random-wait https://www.invisionapp.com/inside-design/essential-steps-designing-empathy/ <https://www.invisionapp.com/inside-design/essential-steps-designing-empathy/>* *More info & attempted solutions* 1. I removed '*--random-wait*' because I thought it might be adding time for each file request, but this did nothing. 2. I thought the https protocol might slow it down with extra calls back and forth for each file so I added '*--no-check-certificate*', but this did nothing. 3. I read there could be an issue with IPv6 so I added '*--inet4-only*', but this did nothing. 4. I read the dns could slow things down so I added '*--no-dns-cache*', but this did nothing. 5. I thought perhaps *wget* was downloading the assets sequentially one at a time so I tried to run multiple commands concurrently with between 3 and 16 threads/processes by removing '*--convert-links*' adding ' *--no-clobber*' in the hopes that with multiple files would be downloaded at the same time and after all files were downloaded that I could run the command again removing '*--no-clobber*' and ' *--page-requisites*' and adding '*--convert-links*' to make it fully functional offline. but this did nothing. I also thought that multiple threads would speed things up because it would remove the latency of the https checks by doing multiple at a time, but I didn't observe this. 6. I read an article about running the command as root user in case there were any limits on a given user, but this did nothing. Sincere thanks in advance, again, Dave