I've had a look on here but can't seem to find questions relating to the Ranges that are used for the "Good" "Bad" "OK" return values from Googles Pagespeed tests.
The reason i ask, i've just wrote a little Nagios plugin to plot the google Pagespeed of URLs for clients and i wanted to incorporate the Warning and Critical levels on PNP4Nagios in the returned perf data.
Its only really to demonstrate to a client or directors that the site, according to Googles Pagespeed is being classed as Bad or that if a change is made and the Pagespeed is effected, they would be able to see on a nice pretty graph.
I understand in the grand scale of things it means there are a ton of other issues that need to be addressed if it is returning bad but its just for the upper gods really.
Thanks in advance
Craig
Do you mean the test results of https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?
In my tests the ranges where as following:
Poor (Red): 0-59
Needs Work (Yellow): 60-85
Good (Green): 86-100
Related
I'm using Gatsby on my website and PageSpeed Insights report keeps reporting /s/fs.js from edge.fullstory.com as a cache issue or an unused script issue (on some pages). As I understand that is because I'm using gatsby-plugin-fullstory, and since it is a 3rd party plugin I can't control the cache, and I don't want to self-host the plugin.
How can I resolve this issue?
PageSpeed Insights suggest improvements that may make a difference.
Caching assets needed by the page is a best practice to avoid them having to be refetched from the server for each page load.
However, in some cases that does NOT make sense to do. Particularly for analytics services where you explicitly WANT them to be called for each page load. Google Analytics and gatsby-plugin-fullstory fall into this category.
PSI is an automated scan that does an incredible job of giving advice for any URL plugged into it. But that does not mean it is completely infallible or that it's advice MUST be followed. In this case the advice is not relevant and can (and in fact should!) be ignored for this particular resource. In fact, this audit is under the "Diagnostic" sections showing it's something that it has diagnosed as a potential problem, rather than definitely an actual problem.
Note that if the rest of the site has a decent caching policy then these outliers are often not flagged by PSI, so the fact they are being flagged for your site, suggests that perhaps you have other assets that could have improved caching settings. If you fix those, then maybe these will stop flagging? But either way take the "Diagnostics" as potential improvements, rather than something that MUST be done.
:)
I recently came across MEAN.JS. I'm still a beginner in webdevelopment but all worked really fine so far. Up to one thing.
Unfortunately, all requests seem to take a huge amount of time - 300 - 4000(!) ms for a single call (have a look at the screenshot). I'm developing locally on a state of the art computer and wonder where the bottleneck might be. Does anyone have the same issues? Could you give me a hint how to attack this problem?
I've had a look at this and similar posts, but couldn't find a way to tackle it.
What are the ways to find bottlenecks in a web application?
The framework uses MongoDB, ExpressJS, AngularJS, Node.js. Could you give me a hint how to track down the source of those latencies in a Javascript-based application? (Maybe a tool, plugin or best practice approach in development?) Have you experienced similar issues?
Greetings,
Tea
It's hard to guess what's wrong as that latency can be originated from many sources, however if we put aside computer and network problems/configurations, and taking into account that you don't have any other processes running that can affect your app performance, the first thing I would check is the express configuration, i.e, the order in which the middleware is loaded. A misplaced middleware can indeed influence the app's performance.
My concern is that anyone in Google can have some access to my uploaded (and published) source codes in plain text. And, what about data stored in DataStore? Are they protected?
I'm using Python 2.7 runtime and, of course, I can make it 'undownloadable' if that helps in some ways.
It's certainly possible that some employee might be able to look at your code and/or data by trying really hard, breaking their employment contract with Google and possibly becoming a law-breaker. I think that's highly unlikely, though.
If you're concern is more around the intellectual property with regards to your code+data, Google's stance regarding that is explicit:
Customer owns all Intellectual Property Rights in any Application and Customer Content, and Google owns all Intellectual Property Rights in the Service.
So at no point of time are they going to look at your code+data and copy anything. Doing so will open the door to your taking them to court immediately.
I think Google takes measures to solve this problem on a much larger scale then what relates to your and my applications on GAE. Compared to the data that it needs to protect from all human eyes, we're fairly unimportant :D
I don't see why this is particularly a problem with AppEngine. Any hosting provider is always going to have access to your code, simply because they own the disks that it lives on. You simply have to believe their code of conduct, if they have one, or that they really don't care about your code.
Take a look at the Confidential Information section of the Google App Engine Terms of Service.
In practice, both your code and your data are probably lost in the noise as far as Google are concerned.
My website has stated to get the following error: OperationalError: (1203, "User xxxxx already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections")
From what I understand this is because there are too many requests to the database at one time and the database cannot cope. Ideally I need to setup caching for the database access and know this is pretty easy to do with Django, but the question is, which cache solution is best.
My hosting is on the MediaTemple gridserver platform if that helps. As far as I am aware I can use any or the solutions that Django provides: http://www.djangobook.com/en/beta/chapter14/
Is there a good way to figure out what the best option should be? I don't generally have much traffic, but sometimes there can be a spike and the content is pretty much static, except for the odd blog post, that doesn't have to be to 'fresh'.
Read a cache solution comparison here.I guess django-staticgenerator would be what are looking for.
And you can take a look at Johny-cache
I'm one man shop, creating a social site. If my site becomes popular, will the tech gods (i.e. techcrunch, mashable, etc.) look down on me for using Google App Engine instead of creating and developing my own cutting edge infrastructure from scratch?
Answer #1: No, TechCrunch et al often report favorably on sites that use fashionable cloud computing services as their back end.
Answer #2: Who the heck cares what the so-called "Tech Gods" think about your implementation details? What matters is whether you can efficiently build a service that customers want at a profitable margin. The opinions of wannabe and never-were journalists are irrelevant to a business plan and in any case nothing impresses like actual success.
Techcrunch, mashable et al. are not tech gods.
It's about being cost-effective. If GAE is right for you, then go for it.
You shouldn't worry about what others might think about the infrastructure of your site. Focus on the content/service that you are going to provide and what others might think about that instead.
No. "Don't reinvent the wheel" is one of the core tenets of programming; this goes for infrastructure too - if GAE fits your infrastructure needs, then go for it.
There are a number of sites using Google App Engine that get pretty good buzz. One is WalkScore.com
Perhaps if you considered it from a different angle? If you develop your site with GAE you should end up with an application that can scale quickly to meet increasing traffic. If your site becomes popular, you will certainly be 'looked down upon' by the tech gods if the site starts falling over.
As everyone else has said, if GAE is a good fit for your site/app, use it. 99% of your users won't even know the difference.
Why would it matter? unless you are getting the sort of traffic that facebook is getting why do you want to waste so much time trying to redo what could be done sucessfully. And if it flops no big loss.
And TechCrunch = not TechGods. What a Heretic!