Speed check

[gpetersz]

I would thank anybody if you check my site.
Actually it is not really about the site itself (though any opinions are welcomed, but it is quite "poor" if you regard it as a HTML creation...) but the speed of it.

I had it on a hungarian fee webspace provider before and now I moved it to
a paying US (globat.com) space.

old site (I mean old place):
http://gportf.uw.hu

new place:
http://www.beautyofbeast.com

I thank anybody who might say some opinions about it (or anything annoying about it). By the way, how can I "back" the viewer? (when you click on the back text under any image you go to the TOP of the parent page because I
linked the parent directly instead of some "back" function. This IS annoying...)

For me the US site is slower about 50%...

[papillon]

I agree that the .com site was slower. Not so slow that I would get up and leave, but slow enough that I noticed it.

[Jim Buck]

Old site: ~13 seconds.
New site: ~5 seconds.

I'm located in San Diego, California.

[digriz]

The newer site took a lot longer to load up. I'm based in the uk.

[JiriNovotny]

Czech Republic here, the USA site is faster

[Robert Cummings]

uk here on 3mbps broadband and new site is painfully slow. Any decent american host is very fast for me so this proves you have a poor provider.

[mikea423]

Just a suggestion. You should really optimise your images. You could easily cut the load times in half I would think if you did that. Try changing all the jpg graphics to gifs, except probably for the soldier. I tested a few of the images to see how small they would get. The buttons are around 11KB now (x2 with the image rollovers). If you convert them to gifs they are under 3KB each.

[Ryan Clark]

I'm in eastern Canada right now, and the new site loaded about 10% slower than the older one.

[prozero]

I'm in Western Europe, the .com is really slower than the .hu. I tested on a few different pages.

[donmc]

~7 seconds for the old site and ~4 seconds for the new site. So pretty fast in either case. I'm in Seattle.
don

[Cartman]

~10 sec for the old site
~7 sec for the new site

I'm on a Fed network in Seattle.

[gpetersz]

I thank you all!

Seemingly it is a bit better for US residents and much worse for Europeans...
(some data are just a bit confusing... From the Czeh Republic the hun site should be much faster....) but seemingly the difference is not really much.

Anyway it is at www.globat.com, I don't know if they are bad or good. The service was exceptional (comparing to my first (and local) provider (not the uw.hu one)), my site (and domain registration) was up and running in 6 hours or so. (I don't really know how it is possible, I thought that the registration should take 2-3 days or so).

Thanks for the techincal advice, I'll convert the frame images and buttons to gifs (high probability), maybe the icons could be converted too...

Thank you all again!

[Robert Cummings]

It's not good for anything. Your new host sucks.

It's possible to get a cheap host that's fast both sides of the atlantic.

[soniCron]

It's not good for anything. Your new host sucks. I concur. Try LunarPages (http://www.lunarpages.com).

[gpetersz]

:(
Actually, it is already paid. So I hope it will be improved and I stay until
the end of my first year. :eek:

[oNyx]

Germany... hu page faster.

Well, that doesn't say too much about the bandwidth. Latency can be the crucial factor in this case. For determining the raw speed you need a bigger file (at least 1mb). And latency... well there is the ping command, which can be also used to ping specific hosts (ping www.page.tld), but the com host seems to ignore ping requests... hmm. And the routing can be also checked with the tracert command.

The hu host has 10 hops and the com one more than 30 (default limit is 30)... [several minutes later]... more than 50... so it seems.

Btw for reaching indiegamer.com it needs 15 hops from here. And reaching something local takes about 6 hops.