Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Long URLs Wasting Bandwidth?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the waste-away-and-build-a-bigger-pipe dept.

Ryan McAdams writes "Popular websites, such as Facebook, are wasting as much as 75MBit/sec of bandwidth due to excessively long URLs. According to a recent article over at O3 Magazine, they took a typical Facebook home page, looked at the traffic statistics from compete.com, and figured out the bandwidth savings if Facebook switched from using URL paths which, in some cases, run over 150 characters in length, to shorter ones. It looks at the impact on service providers, with the wasted bandwidth used by the subsequent GET requests for these excessively long URLs. Facebook is just one example; many other sites have similar problems, as well as CMS products such as Word Press. It's an interesting approach to web optimization for high traffic sites."

15 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Who knows? by esocid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are forums (fora?) like these wasting bandwidth as well by allowing nerds, like myself, to banter about minutia (not implying this topic)? Discuss amongst yourselves.



    Read the rest of this comment

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Who knows? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Funny

      One man's waste is another man's treasure. Some say, "The world is my oyster." I say, "The world is my dumpster."

      Wasted bandwidth, indeed.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  2. Re:Can they not use... by dotgain · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, they cannot use TinyURL (read: goatse, tubgirl et. al) thank you very much.

  3. Whatever by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1, Funny

    75 MBit/s? What's that in Libraries of Congress per decifortnight?

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  4. Re:Can they not use... by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should just move all the GET parameters to POST. Problem solved. ;)

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
  5. Re:Depending on your viewpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I also like his username.

  6. Customer bulletin by kheldan · · Score: 4, Funny
    Dear Customer,
    In order to maximize the web experience for all customers, effective immediately all websites with URLs in excess of 16 characters will be bandwidth throttled.

    Sincerely,
    Comcast

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  7. Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just use a smaller font for the URL!

  8. African or European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    75 MBit/s? What's that in Libraries of Congress per decifortnight?

    Depends. Is it an African or European Library of Congress?

  9. Re:Can they not use... by gbh1935 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This thread is wasting more bandwidth

  10. Re:Can they not use... by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's nothing. This is the most disgusting shit you'll ever see on the Internet.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  11. Re:Can they not use... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Funny

    I won't lie. I was partly relieved, but partly dissapointed when I clicked that link.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  12. Re:Can they not use... by Dan541 · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://tinyurl.com/6rywju

    Tiny url is not all bad, this is one example of a positive use.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  13. Acrnym by noppy · · Score: 3, Funny

    To fthr sav our bdwdth, ^A txt shld be cmprsd into acrnyms!

  14. Re:Can they not use... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was disappointed, too. I was expecting a link to idle.slashdot.org.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)