On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote: > > > >> As for my files and homepage being Huge, yep, it's made for the future > or current fast internet connections. > >> Frankly, size reduction is not on my agenda. I'll wait for the nets to > become faster still. > >> And the server should spit it out at 2MB/s at least.. > > > > That may be so, but when my 100Mbit/s connection finally managed to > download the file it took about 4 minutes, which is nowhere near 2MB/s. > Your homepage takes 7 seconds to load - that's unacceptable in the real > world, especially when you're talking about a server that's (and I'm only > guessing here) not under heavy load. > > > > Anyway, your comment about waiting for the nets (sic) to catch up so it > can cope with your bloat has convinced me to not bother looking any further > into your project, but I wish you the best of luck with it (you're gonna > need it). > > > > -Stuart > > > > -- > > Stuart Dallas > > 3ft9 Ltd > > http://3ft9.com/ > > > > Yup... I think rene forgot the fact is if each client requests pull > 1MB/s , his upload has to be at least 120MB/s for 100 simultaneous > clients' connections. Last time I check in ISP services, that > bandwidth falls within OC-12+ category.... > If ya'll would take a closer look at my site, you'd see that most of the size is in artwork. If you want a simple site, use simple artwork. It's _not_ my code's size that's any problem, as I mentioned earlier. Enough for now, I'll look at this list tomorrow again. Time for partying with the live mix at frequence3.fr now..