I have installed the Lite Speed Cache plugin on my Wordpress directly from the server.
Also Cloudflare, my question is it better to disable Cloudflare and use Lite Speed CDN.
Thank you very much
scenario 1:
You could try to use different CDN. Then you could compare which performance/security/cost is better for your site.
scenario 2:
You could try to use both CDN to serve your website.
please see the tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5JCiHmAjzk
Use QUIC.cloud CDN serve the dynamic content
User cloudflare CDN to serve the static content
My suggestion: if you want to use fully features, you need to use LiteSpeed Cache plugin and QUIC.cloud.
Related
For my IPFS server, I use pinata.cloud and upload my content there. But it is slow and I have heard people say that Cloudflare IPFS are faster. But I couldn't find anything on how to upload to Cloudflare IPFS server instead of Pinata.
I might have misunderstood the whole thing. Does it really matter where do I upload my content as long as I upload it to IPFS? Like, is there any difference if I use IPFS desktop or use Pinata to upload my content to IPFS? How is Cloudflare faster then? or is it?
not sure if it belongs here or is well titled, but I finish soon my first Nuxt project and I am not sure, where to host it.
Usually I would use a Ionos or digital ocean droplet, but I was told that aws amplify or S3 (I have no Idea about any solution) might be cheaper or maybe cost nothing, since it is a small project, cause it depends on how intense process are ...
If true, would that apply as well, when I would need to run git pull and then the build/generate process, once a day, to get new content (via nuxt/content)?
Sorry if expressed poorly and thanks in advance for any helpful suggestion.
This question do not really belong to stackoverflow because it's essentially opinion based.
By order of preference, I do personally recommend those:
Netlify
Vercel
Digitalocean
Github pages
Surge
More on the official documentation of Nuxt: https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/deployment/netlify-deployment
We are trying to improve our site performance. As part of that, we are planning to do 2 things:
all static images are served via S3. This way, the images are served cookie-less.
we have a bunch of other static content - javascript, CSS, images such as our logo, etc. We are wondering what the best way is to serve these.
Currently, they are simply stored in the assets folder. This is nice & easy, and since Rails attaches a fingerprint to cache bust, all our current needs are met. However, going forward, we realize that this is not the right way to serve up these images (our logo, etc).
So what's the best way to serve this sort of content?
Thanks!
Ringo
If you are already using S3, then I would put all of these files on S3 too. Then use AWS CloudFront (Content Delivery Network) so that they get served up fast. The cost of CloudFront is really negligible.
You can use a gem like https://github.com/rumblelabs/asset_sync to make it easier to manage.
I'm wondering how I can find out where the culprit is, as to what is NOT being transmitted over SSL on my website. It's blowing my mind, because I use relative URLs or explicitly choose HTTPS:// for all links, images, etc...
Any ideas/tools to find out what the issue is?
Thanks.
If you mean that some resources are transferred over HTTP without encryption, you can check for this in Chrome's Developer tools in the tab Resources - that should tell you which parts come from where - look for those with address starting with http:// .
Alternately, use Fiddler: by default, it won't decrypt HTTPS connections, so you'll be seeing CONNECT requests for HTTPS, and GET/POST for HTTP - those are your culprits.
For those, like myself, who run into this issue i suggest a few tips while designing your website.
Always use relative paths when ever possible "images/someimage.png" instead of using domain paths like http://someDomainName/images/someimage.png so on. Any one of these and it will cause the browser to throw that warning at you.
When linking to external content, Google/other Ads, javascript sources(such as jquery, so on), or any other media... make sure you use a https:// link if they have one available. Myself, i had one tiny image for a link to an external site but they did not offer a https link to the image, so i simply downloaded it and put it in my images folder. Problem solved.
The Chrome resources list is a very helpful tool, not sure if Firefox has something similar in its tool box. Another method, if you have shell/command line access, is to use grep to search the files for "http:". This, most often, will show anything that is linking to non secure content.
I am suggested by a friend to use nginx for my site http://www.imgzzz.com . its an image hosting site with loads of traffic.
Currently im on a vps ..CentOS 5.4 x64 , Apache
Most views are on image pages. So far to decrease the load on server i have done cache of almost all data like user details, image name, path, category details etc.
Still i have to go with about 3 sql queries every page/view.
Addition of Views
Displaying Views
Addition of user ad views with respect to their ads shown
Considering the traffic from social media sites like digg, stumbleupon. per second online user peaks upto 1500-2500. So i guess you can get the idea of php queries per second.. Sometimes it causes the server to lag.
The rest of the stuff on image pages is static. So now do you guys suggest nginx or any other better option for my server?
Thanks in advance :)
Edit : This is a custom system not any cms
I would recommend using nginx as your static file server. I run nginx for this and it works great, and I could vouch for alot of other people I know that uses it. It's fast and reliable.