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..

Reply via email to