Comments on: WebPagetest.org – top tool

By: Michael F

Michael F — Wed, 05 May 2010 09:27:57 +0000

What is the principle cause of the time to first byte values for the png files (or other static resources) in the example above for wikipedia. My sites have a similar profile… basically all of the time is spent in the Time To First Byte phase.

any suggestions would be appreciated.

By: jack powers

jack powers — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:54:46 +0000

Patrick is always available to help you on the forum.

By: Vincent Voyer

Vincent Voyer — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:33:47 +0000

Dummynet works very well on windows, thanks a lot, before that i was simulating trafic from server (wich was on linux so easier…)

By: Patrick Meenan

Patrick Meenan — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:13:29 +0000

FWIW, the dev.webpagetest.org urls are for the TRAC instance. The code is here: http://code.webpagetest.org/svn/ though it’s probably easier if you use the packaged installers that I release in the forums (granted, they get a bit out of date between releases).

Simulating the bandwidth also just got a bunch easier as DUMMYNET was just released for Windows so you can set up traffic shaping directly on the test machines: http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/dummynet/

By: ExKwhanDo

ExKwhanDo — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:33:56 +0000

I strongly recommand this tool.
I you have the knowledge, you can install it on your server, it’s a very great tool to use.

Patrick is always available to help you on the forum.

By: vincent voyer

vincent voyer — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:30:58 +0000

Also you can install the tool at work if you want to test websites that are not accessible over the internet. (though you’ll have to simulate low bandwith !)

It’s opensource : http://dev.webpagetest.org/

By: Kirk Cerny

Kirk Cerny — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:11:27 +0000

I think the waterfall view is better than any other tool.
Thanks.

By: Patrick Meenan

Patrick Meenan — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:01:34 +0000

Yeah, other browsers is on the list of things I really want to get done but it’s a pretty big effort and I’ve mostly been working on things that I can get done in little chunks.

Firefox, Chrome and Safari (all Windows) – in that order is the plan and not all of the capabilities will be there from the start but hopefully I can come up with a good way to do it generically. I may have to ditch https/SSL support for an initial cut which will make it much easier to do generically.

By: Joseph Scott

Joseph Scott — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:11:19 +0000

Agreed this is a really slick tool that probably doesn’t get the coverage it deserves. I’ve used a few times and have been very impressed with the amount of information it provides, at a very detailed level.

Not sure what it will take to add support for other browsers, but that would probably be at the top of my feature request list.

By: Mohamed Mansour

Mohamed Mansour — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:55:05 +0000

Wow, very nice tool indeed! I really like the performance breakdown per file!