Slashdot Mirror
Are Long URLs Wasting Bandwidth?
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."
compression to shorten the URL's?
Wordpress by default allows you to configure URL writing. The default is set to something like: http://www.mysite.com/?p=1.
For SEO purposes it's always handy to switch to the more popular example: http://www.mysite.com/2009/03/my-title-of-my-post.html.
Suggesting that we cut URL's that help Google rank our pages higher is preposterous.
The short Facebook URLs waste bandwidth too ;)
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
It's irrelevantly small portion of the traffic, while at the scale of Facebook, it could save some traffic, but does not make any impact on the bottomline worthwhile the effort!
150 chars long url = 150 bytes VS 50KILObytes + Images of rest of the pageview....
I'm throwing out of my head that 50kilobytes for the full page text, but a pageview often runs at over 100kb.
So it's totally irrelevant if they can shave off the 100kb a whopping 150bytes.
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
This is a stupid exercise. Oh my gosh, there's an extra few characters wasted. They're talking about 150 characters, which would be 150 bytes, or (gasp) 0.150KB.
10 times the bandwidth could be saved by removing a 1.5KB image from the destination page, or doing a little added compression to the rest of the images. The same can be said for sending out the page itself gzipped.
We did this exercise at my old work. We had relatively small pages. 10 pictures per page, roughly 300x300, a logo, and a very few layout images. We saved a fortune in bandwidth by compressing the pictures just a very little bit more. Not a lot. Just enough to make a difference.
Consider taking 100,000,000 hits in a day. Bringing a 15KB image to 14KB would be .... wait for it .... 100GB per day saved in transfers.
The same can be said for conserving the size of the page itself. Badly written pages (and oh are there a lot of them out there) not only take up more bandwidth because they have a lot of crap code in them, but they also tend to take longer to render.
I took one huge badly written page, stripped out the crap content (like, do you need a font tag on every word?), cleaned up the table structure (this was pre-CSS), and the page loaded much faster. That wasn't just the bandwidth savings, that was a lot of overhead on the browser where it didn't have to parse all the extra crap in it.
I know they're talking about the inbound bandwidth (relative to the server), which is usually less than 10% of the traffic. Most of the bandwidth is wasted in the outbound bandwidth. That's all anyone really cares about. Server farms only look at outbound bandwidth, because that's always the higher number, and the driving factor of their 95th percentile. Home users all care about their download bandwidth, because that's what sucks up the most for them. Well, unless they're running P2P software. I know I was a rare (but not unique) exception, where I was frequently sending original graphics in huge formats, and ISO's to and from work.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Of all things that could be optimized, urls shouldn't have a high priority (unless you want people to enter them manually). I'm pretty sure their HTML, CSS, and javascript could be optimized way more than just their urls. But rather than simply sites, people often what it to be filled with crap (which nobody but themselves care about).
ps, that doesn't mean you should try to create "nice" urls instead of incomprehensible url that contain things like article.pl?sid=09/03/27/2017250
Of all things that could be optimized, urls shouldn't have a high priority (unless you want people to enter them manually). I'm pretty sure their HTML, CSS, and javascript could be optimized way more than just their urls. But rather than simply sites, people often what it to be filled with crap (which nobody but themselves care about).
ps, that doesn't mean you should try to create "nice" urls instead of incomprehensible url that contain things like article.pl?sid=09/03/27/2017250
To your ps, most of that is easily comprehensible It was an article that ran today; only the 2017250 is unmeaningful in itself. Perhaps article.pl?sid=09/03/27/Muerte/WasteOfEffort would be better but we're trying to shorten things up.
Exactly. If they wanted to try optimize the site, they could start looking at the number of Javascript files they include (8 on the homepage alone) and the number of HTTP requests each page requires. My Facebook page has *20* files getting included alone.
From what I can judge, a lot of their Javascript and CSS files don't seem to be getting cached on the client's machine either. They could also take a look at using CSS sprites to reduce the number of HTTP requests required by their images.
I mean, clicking on the home button is a whopping 726KB in size (with only 145 KB coming from cache), and 167 HTTP requests! Sure, a lot seem to be getting pulled from a content delivery network, but come on, that's a bit crazy.
Short URIs are the least of their worries.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
For an even more egregious example of web design / CMS fail, take a look at the HTML on this page.
$ wc wtf.html
12480 9590 166629 wtf.html
I'm not puzzled by the fact that it took 166 kilobytes of HTML to write 50 kilobytes of text. That's actually not too bad. What takes it from bloated into WTF-land is the fact that that page is 12,480 lines long. Moreover...
$ vi wtf.html
Attention Globe and Mail web designers: When your idiot print newspaper editor tells you to make liberal use of whitespace, this is not what he had in mind!
Just use a smaller font for the URL!
Are Long URLs Wasting Bandwidth?
No. But this article is.
...the first 1831 lines (!) of the page are blank...Attention Globe and Mail web designers: When your idiot print newspaper editor tells you to make liberal use of whitespace, this is not what he had in mind!
Believe it or not, someone had it in mind. This is most likely a really, really stupid attempt at security by obscurity.
PHB:My kid was showing me something on our website, and then he just clicked some buttons and the entire source code was available for him to look at. You need to do something about that. ::whispering to WebGuy #2:: Just add a bunch of empty lines. When the boss looks at it, he won't think to scroll down much before he gives up.
WebGuy:You mean the html code? Well, that actually does need to get transferred. You see, the browser does the display transformation on the client's computer...
PHB:The source code is out intellectual property!
WebGuy:Fine. We'll handle it.
PHB:Ah, I see that when I try to look at the source it now shows up blank! Good work!