0

I'm currently trying for my own education to achieve the fastest site speed possible for a landing page. I have hosted it once on Siteground with all speed optimizations on (Minify, Level 3 Supercacher (Memcached) and Lazy Loading, Cloudflare)

I have setup the 99% same site (100% not possible since SG has its own optimizer)

I assumed AWS will be faster. But when I look in my Developer Toolbar, Pingdom or GTMetrix SG wins. The reason is all files have a longer waiting time. I know it is minimal, but given the fact I want to achieve maximum speed I am wondering what the reason is. I tried to use a bigger instance, but changing from t2.micro to m4.16xlarge didn't make a difference. I am wondering if it would anyway without visitors.

This is the loading time on Siteground:

loading time on Siteground

This is on my AWS Site:

Loading time on AWS EC 2

The difference is that the JS and CSS files on SG get loaded in 20-30ms and the files on AWS in 40-50ms.

The last options I could try would be Varnish Cache or move to Lightsail, but I'm not sure if this will help.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Julian Wagner
  • 674
  • 6
  • 16
  • What is the fastest way today, tomorrow, or in a month or year? Technologies are being upgraded and providers are improving their products on a daily basis. The chart that you have provided is valid only for now so it is rather pointless (my opinion). But if you want to speed up delivery on AWS, you can offload static content to S3, set up CloudFront pointing to S3 and load the files via CloudFront url (measure the time after CloudFront actually cached the content). – Matus Dubrava Jul 09 '19 at 11:37
  • Thank you. That helps me already. As said this is mainly for my education. While pursuing this goal I learn a lot about server architecture, caching etc. Do you have an explanation of why EC2 is slower than S3 in that case? + Will the loading speed change with different instances, if you just have one user? – Julian Wagner Jul 09 '19 at 12:10
  • Generally assets in EC2 and S3 are stored in single region, can't compare with Cloudflare which cache static contents in 180+ edge locations around the world. To be fair, use S3 with Cloudfront which have similar number of edge locations with Cloudflare. – FaizAzhar Jul 10 '19 at 16:24
  • Why not EC2 with Cloudflare or S3 with Cloudflsre instead of front – Julian Wagner Jul 11 '19 at 19:24

0 Answers0