The two connections thing is actually a "suggestion" in the HTTP 1.1 Spec: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec8.html#sec8.1.4
The two concepts are almost but not quite entirely orthogonal. Multiple asset domains allows for more simultaneous requests, and there's going to be a sweet spot for trading this off against DNS lookups (and DNS is going to depend on so many different conditions ... ISP, browser, ambient temperature, etc ...it's very hard to test). A good CDN should be able to reduce latency by moving content closer to the request and, in general, have very massive pipes for fast throughput. With a system like Amazon CloudFront, you can actually setup multiple domains backed onto the CDN, gaining the best of both worlds. But, of course, a CDN means $$. I think you can't go wrong using something like asset_packager to reduce the total number of javasscript and css files, make sure gzip is on, and have a couple of subdomains for your asset hosting. On Apr 14, 10:16 am, Daniel Sabados <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > YSlow and Page Speed rant on about reducing DNS lookups by using a CDN, > whilst rails advocates multiple asset servers so that "browsers will open > eight simultaneous connections rather than two". > > Is one method of asset delivery clearly better than the other or does it > come down to best fit? > > It'd be great to hear some opinions. > > Thanks, > > Dan. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
