On 7/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">J-P Stacey</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:jp.stacey@torchbox.com">jp.stacey@torchbox.com</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>We&#39;ve just launched a new Drupal site on our server and it didn&#39;t even<br>register a blip on the server load. Page loading is reasonable, according to<br>Firebug - less than a second, but the site is quite image-heavy. We&#39;ve had
<br>it down to less than half a second on low-image pages, which is higher than<br>Khalid&#39;s quoted 100-300ms, but then we&#39;ve not done any optimization apart<br>from turning non-aggressive cacheing on. If we had a large community site
<br>then we&#39;d have to look into that.</blockquote><div><br>To clarify, my statement was on server side PHP page generation time, as<br>measured by the devel module, not the browser full page loading time. They <br>are very different things.
<br><br>For example, a single image node on a busy site with a few comments gives this<br>when the devel module is enabled:<br><br>Executed 168 queries in 201.84 milliseconds. Page execution time was 242.51 ms.<br><br>This means 41 ms for PHP, which is very good (powerful CPU, tuned system,
<br>accelator, ...etc.)<br><br>The home page has 30 node teasers, and takes more to load:<br><br>Executed 553 queries in 572.01 milliseconds. Page execution time was 771.64.<br>More queries, and more PHP processing, but still good.
<br><br>The browser load time includes images, CSS, JS, and all the other baggage that<br>are on the pages (e.g. loading ads from third party server, logging statistics (e.g.<br>analytics).<br></div></div>-- <br><a href="http://2bits.com">
2bits.com</a><br><a href="http://2bits.com">http://2bits.com</a><br>Drupal development, customization and consulting.