tags:

views:

69

answers:

3

Hi guys,

Following yahoos performance teams advice, I decided to enable mod_deflate on Apache. In checking the results (using HTTPWatch), the gzipped responses took on average a 100 milliseconds more than the non-gzipped?

The server is on average load using <5% of CPU. Compression level is at minimum?

have you guys experienced results as such or read about it? I very much appreciate any input. Thanks.

+1  A: 

What kind of responses are you sending? You won't notice any benefits in compressing certain kinds of binary data, e.g. images, Flash animations and other such assets; GZip works best for text.

Also, compressing data will incur a slight performance overhead on both server and client, but you expected that, right?

Rob
Hi Rob, I encoded Text/HTML, JS, CSS, JPG -- I assumed there could be severe CPU utilization on load, though I didnt even test that since I got these unflattering results. My Test targetted a rather large JS > 200KB and compressed to 54KB file and it seems, the uncompressed file consistently got served faster.
+1  A: 

I don't think Yahoo's point is that gzipping will be faster. It's that if you look at the marginal cost of bandwidth versus CPU power, you're better off using more CPU if it allows you to use less bandwidth.

Michael Cramer
A: 

I'd agree with Rob that you need to figure out if the delay is due to Apache not serving the file as quickly because it has to go through compression or if its something else. Just watching the HTTP response is not going to tell you WHY its slower, just that it is.

jarrett