When I connect the website, only IE 11 opened very slow because of fls.doubleclick.net,
not in safari, chrome.
I applied some solution in internet such as changing internet options about checking webpage
revocation, but it didn't`work.
Is there anyone who experienced about this?
And any solution about this?
Thanks.
Try to use F12 developer Network tools to check the website resource loading time, we can see that it will spend too much time to load the JavaScript file and CSS style.
To improve the website performance, you could try to use the following methods:
Improve the JavaScript script performance.
Use Specific CSS and Script files
Using large CSS files that are used for the entire site in multiple pages will increase the loading time of the page thus leading to a performance hit. It can be split and stored in different files thus loading only what is required for each page. It will minimize the loading time of the pages.
User CDN reference.
Minify Resources (HTML, CSS, and JavaScript).
More detail information about Improve Web Application Performance, please refer the following links:
Tips And Best Practices To Improve ASP.NET Web Application Performance
Tips to Improve the Performance of an ASP.Net Application
Minify Resources (HTML, CSS, and JavaScript)
Related
When I check my website URL on Google URL inspection tool it shows that page resources could not be loaded i.e image, stylesheet and script files. However, my website is working perfectly on a live server and the website is not rendered properly by Googlebot smartphone. I have tried everything to remove these errors but nothing helped. I have also checked that these resources are not blocked in robots.txt file.
Screenshot of page resources error
I've been struggling with this for a couple of days now, and finally reached the only solution that has worked for me. In my case, it wasn't a robots.txt problem, as I believe that you've already checked before posting this.
The problem has to do with the number of resources Googlebot is willing to fetch before giving up. If your CSS and JS files are too many, or too big, Googlebot gives up before fetching all of the resources needed to render the page properly.
You can solve it by minifying your files via a server mod, or via plugins like WP Rocket or Autoptimize. If you have too many CSS and JS files and the problem persists after minifying, try combining these files as well by using the same plugins.
We have an MVC web site deployed in a Cloud Service on Microsoft Azure. For boosting performance, some of my colleagues suggested that we avoid the bundling and minification provided by ASP.NET MVC4 and instead store the .js and .css files on an Azure blob. Please note that the solution does not use a CDN, it merely serves the files from a blob.
My take on this is that just serving the files this way will not cause any major performance benefits. Since we are not using a CDN, the files will get served from the region in which our storage is deployed all the time. Ever time a user requests a page, at least for the first time, the data will flow across the data center boundary and that will in turn incur cost. Also, since they are not bundled but kept as individual files, the server requests will be more. So we are forfeiting the benefits of bundling and minification. The only benefit I see to this approach is that we can do changes to the .js and .css files and upload them without a need to re-deploy.
Can anyone please tell me which of the two options is preferable in terms of performance?
I can't see how this would be better than bundling and minification unless the intent is to blob store your minified and bundled files. The whole idea is to reduce requests to the server because javascript processes a single thread at a time and in addition there's added download time, I'd do everything I can to reduce that request count.
As a separate note on the image side, I'd also combine images into a single image and use css sprites ala: http://vswebessentials.com/features/bundling
I am working on a survey engine for the iPhone. We use a declarative xml format that can be downloaded post store install. It's working pretty well but not being able to script is becoming problematic. I have this idea to use a webView to execute javascript code to provide this functionality.
My question is will this run afoul of Apple's rule of not downloading executable script code? They do seem to allow for downloading of JS code that will run in a web view. Would they consider this approach an abuse of this rule?
Thanks
I don't think so. A lot of native applications are actually built this way. They simply open a webview and load a web page, with all the logic done in javascript.
I ran Google's Page Speed on our web app to analyze and optimize our web site .
One of the many items under Web Performance Best Practices as listed in Page Speed says "To take advantage of the full benefits of caching consistently across all browsers, we recommend that you configure your web server to explicitly set caching headers and apply them to all cacheable static resources, not just a small subset (such as images). Cacheable resources include JS and CSS files, image files, and other binary object files (media files, PDFs, Flash files, etc.). In general, HTML is not static, and shouldn't be considered cacheable."
How do I configure tomcat to achieve the same ? I know it can be done via Filters by putting some HTTP headers but can we do it without touching code just by configuration ?
Edit : Just for information we use JSF 1.2 although I think this is irrelevant in context of this question.
If you are on Tomcat7, there is a built-in filter for that.
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/filter.html#Expires_Filter
We use the wonderful URlRewriteFilter to do this. No code change, just configuration to web.xml, that's all. Link and rule below.
http://tuckey.org/urlrewrite/
<rule>
<from>^.*\.(js|css|gif)$</from>
<set type="expires">6 hours</set>
</rule>
I am part of the developer team for a quite a large online system using ASP.NET(4).
Asp.net Ajax completely breaks down for Webkit browsers and we are getting full page postbacks when we should be getting partial only for the UpdatePanels.
I am starting to believe it has something to do with my Application Configuration, mainly for the following reasons.
If I move the ajax enabled controls to a new project they will work as expected for all browsers, including Webkit.
I created a static .aspx file with nothing but an UpdatePanel,ScriptManager and a button making a literal visible on click.
I get no Javascript errors from any browser, and i see an http request for the asp.net-ajax (ScriptResource.axd) in both Firebug and Chrome Developer tools
I tried ye'old safari fix from this highly referenced thread
Edit: After a bit more testing and http sniffing i noticed a major difference between the test application and the actual application. The test application generates 2 additional .axd files which are not generated from the actual application. These WebResource.axd, seem to contain data related to the async postback. However this is only the case for Webkit browsers. The WebResource.axd files are generated for Firefox as i can see them in firebug
What i am asking from the community, is any ideas or suggestions as to what could be the cause of this problem and if i am correct to assume that the problem is probably on the server side
Thanks for any help
The problem was due to a deprecated config file that's used to limit the content that bots/spiders/crawlers receive, which was loading by mistake thanks to our lovely inhouse CMS
In short if u get behavior similar to my case, check your or configs
I was having a similar issue however my problem was with all browsers and not just webkit. I ended up going through and tearing up the web.config file and found out that a line: <xhtmlConformance mode="Legacy"> was preventing webresource.axd from working properly. The fix was to simply remove that line from my web.config file.
For a little more information on xhtmlConformance, visit http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/librarY/ms228268(v=vs.85).aspx.
If you scroll all the way to the bottom you'll notice it explicitly states that it causes issues with webresource.axd and scriptresource.axd.