Hosting Images On a Different Domain?

[PROFRBcom]

I read once that hosting images on a different domain could be a faster way to serve images to a user and a faster way to paint the website.

Example:
www contentwebsite com
www imagewebsite com

Content on contentwebsite com/somepage would look like:

<p>This is a paragraph blah blah</p>
<img src="www imagewebsite com/this-is-an-image>

If one had a super fast web provider for both sites, but perhaps different hosts such that:
www contentwebsite com is on say, GoogleCDN
www imagewebsite com is perhaps on FASTLY CDN

The theory here is that the css, js, content is served from one set of servers and the images from another.

Would this result in serving pages and painting pages faster to the end user?

[universal4]

In some cases hosting on a different server can be faster, in some cases slower.

If the route to the "other server" is slower then the route to your sever it will slow down the image load. If the server hosting the images is slower or higher overhead, it "can" slow down the image load.

If the server serving the images is down, images will not show obviously, but depending on other factors, the [age might not finish loading properly.

Rick
Universal4

[PROFRBcom]

In some cases hosting on a different server can be faster, in some cases slower.

If the route to the "other server" is slower then the route to your sever it will slow down the image load. If the server hosting the images is slower or higher overhead, it "can" slow down the image load.

If the server serving the images is down, images will not show obviously, but depending on other factors, the [age might not finish loading properly.

Rick
Universal4

Yeah, I get that Rick.

EDIT: Found a link that kinda relates my idea: https://developer.yahoo.com/performa...ml#cookie_free

I'm not talking about ****** shared hosting here. I'm talking about finding out what CDN is the absolute best and hosting a domain solely for serving images from it whilst simultaneously hosting the main website sans images on another, super fast host w/CDN.

So that the css, js, html is served from our site when someone hits our website, and something like uberfastimages.com serves the images. Assuming both CDN's were exactly the same speed, wouldn't this still speed things up by providing multiple http2 connections in the browser? Or am I misunderstanding this somehow?

I'm trying to shave 300 ms off the load time of a site and not terribly concerned with cost of implementation.

[Sherlock]

I do that but for different reasons.
If you have static website, just cache the one website.
What you read is maybe old, advice from some 2usd hosting guy who had no space for images on shared server.

[ddm]

the big WHY of CDNs fwiw

User Experience: Without Cloudflare’s CDN, visitors geographically distant from your origin web server experience slow page loads. CDN serves your cached content to remove load from your origin web server.

DDoS Protection: Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks disrupt websites by flooding their infrastructure with traffic. Cloudflare’s CDN has a network capacity 15 times bigger than the largest DDoS attack ever recorded and handles modern DDoS to ensure your website stays online.

https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en...oudflare-s-CDN


@prof - u tried cloudflare man?

[PROFRBcom]

the big WHY of CDNs fwiw

User Experience: Without Cloudflare’s CDN, visitors geographically distant from your origin web server experience slow page loads. CDN serves your cached content to remove load from your origin web server.

DDoS Protection: Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks disrupt websites by flooding their infrastructure with traffic. Cloudflare’s CDN has a network capacity 15 times bigger than the largest DDoS attack ever recorded and handles modern DDoS to ensure your website stays online.

https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en...oudflare-s-CDN


@prof - u tried cloudflare man?

We use CF for DNS because it's faster. Or it was, looking at it tonight I'm not sure it's still in the top 3 fastest DNS servers. There was a website that tracked and compared this but I've lost the URL.

Our provider hooks us into their CDN and AFAIK, we have one of the fastest hosts available. I'm not sure it is even possible to swap the CDN because of the technology involved.

I just want to shave 300ms off of FCP and load time, but I'll settle for -300ms FCP if I can get it.

[Malikbhai]

Buy a Cloudinary plan and then use CNAME to make the image URL look like images.yoursite.com. It would be served from the CDN and will work as intended.

Or, if you can manage the technicalities, just get an Amazon S3 bucket.

CDN-hosted images are faster. Much faster, if you cannot implement full cache on your main website for whatever reason. If you can, then Cloudflare's cache-everything protocol will work just like a CDN.

[Malikbhai]

Personally, I wouldn't touch anything if the entire load time of your website is under 3 seconds. Sometimes going through this is not worth it.

But, then again, I'm just a bricklayer, so what do I know.

[allfreechips]

Cloudflare CDN and lazy load JS to speed up the works, there are basic lazy loads or more advanced that only loads images in the veiwport. Very simple to use.

[ddm]

i wonder which gpwa'ers have the fastest sites, and which platforms they use. would be interesting to automate a little test =)

[TheGooner]

Example:
www contentwebsite com
www imagewebsite com

Would this result in serving pages and painting pages faster to the end user?

Technically, I can't see HOW it would result in faster responses as having images and content on separate servers will result in far more background calls and overhead behind the scenes in order to serve up a page.

However, if the single server was struggling to handle load with both content and images then it might be better?

[allfreechips]

My fastest siotes are the ones i programmed without any other crap such as WP / vbulletin.. Kills me AFC is really tied to vbulletin