Answers.Body: <p>It's on our list to improve the 2-300ms time to first byte you're seeing as well, but that won't happen until after Yii 2/Craft 3.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-19T22:12:18.653Z
Answers.Text: Sure, glad that it's not something I'm missing! Like I mentioned, not a huge drama at the moment :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: crawf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-19T17:48:36.383Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-11-19T17:48:36.383Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brad Bell
Answers.Body: <p>MAMP isn't really tuned for performance either. And also keep in mind Time to First Byte is not the only indicator of a fast website. You should consider overall perceived time and actual download time as factors as well.</p>
  
  <p>CloudFlare <a href="http://blog.cloudflare.com/ttfb-time-to-first-byte-considered-meaningles/" rel="nofollow">talked about one aspect of this</a> on their blog... for example: with Gzip compression, the web server has to wait while it compresses the output then send it along. That adds to your TTFB. So on first blush, gzip compression would appear to be a bad thing but in reality, your overall download time and file size shrink, and as a result, it's an easy win.</p>
  
  <p>If your content doesn't change all that much, when you get your Craft site up live, you might also want to consider caching on the server level as well, either with Nginx (fastcgi_cache) or something like Varnish in front of Apache. Those layers add complexity (e.g. when and how to clear the cache?) but it'll get you super fast output if that's your goal.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-21T01:41:40.070Z
Answers.Text: Very good points @RitterKnight - I'm also considering Fastly as outlined here - http://onedesigncompany.com/news/high-performance-craft-caching-with-fastly
Answers.UserDisplayName: crawf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-22T21:35:16.507Z
Answers.Text: Yes, regardless of whether you go for a static page cache or not, a CDN is is going to help your images and other static assets and unlike other CMSes, Craft makes it super uncomplicated to set it up. Fastly is awesome if you have a ton of traffic but their minimum spend is $50 so you may want to consider other CDNs too. AWS lets you use Cloudfront in their free tier, something to consider if your traffic is under 50 GB.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RitterKnight
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-23T12:23:44.347Z
Answers.Text: Yeah, Fastly does looks sweet, but soon noticed that $50 min :) Will definitely check out CloudFront. Thanks so much for your thoughts and suggestions!
Answers.UserDisplayName: crawf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-23T12:24:11.550Z
Answers.Text: Also - Craft makes everything uncomplicated to setup :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: crawf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-20T22:12:12.207Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-11-20T22:12:12.207Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RitterKnight
Answers.Body: <p>There is an excellent article on <a href="http://www.patpohler.com/performance-optimization-craft-cms/" rel="nofollow">optimizing performance in craft</a> from Pat Pohler you might want to check out. He goes through every detail meticulously looking for speed load gains. Good read.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-19T22:10:17.497Z
Answers.Text: It is indeed a great article, and one that I've followed to the letter. However, still getting that delay until first byte as Brad mentions. Thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: crawf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-19T16:37:04.513Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-11-19T16:37:04.513Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Douglas McDonald
Body: <p>Just wanted to check in to see if what i'm seeing is reasonable. Just trying to tweak the performance of a single-page Craft site, and basically working backwards to find bottlenecks. Following all the suggested items (devMode off, static assets caching, minimise db calls, etc).</p>
  
  <p>However, working my way all the way back to a blank template file (no code at all), no plugins enabled, the page still take 250-300ms to load nothing at all. All this while running locally via MAMP.</p>
  
  <p>Is this an expected speed? I'm aware thats pretty fast, but would've thought locally would be near instantaneous. This will only get worse on a server (especially shared hosting).</p>
  
Tags: <performance>
Title: Slightly-slow page load for blank page
ThreadText: # Slightly-slow page load for blank page
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-11-19)
  
  Just wanted to check in to see if what i'm seeing is reasonable. Just trying to tweak the performance of a single-page Craft site, and basically working backwards to find bottlenecks. Following all the suggested items (devMode off, static assets caching, minimise db calls, etc).
  
  However, working my way all the way back to a blank template file (no code at all), no plugins enabled, the page still take 250-300ms to load nothing at all. All this while running locally via MAMP.
  
  Is this an expected speed? I'm aware thats pretty fast, but would've thought locally would be near instantaneous. This will only get worse on a server (especially shared hosting).
  
  **Tags:** performance
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2014-11-19. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  It's on our list to improve the 2-300ms time to first byte you're seeing as well, but that won't happen until after Yii 2/Craft 3.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Sure, glad that it's not something I'm missing! Like I mentioned, not a huge drama at the moment :)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-11-20. Score: 4
  
  MAMP isn't really tuned for performance either. And also keep in mind Time to First Byte is not the only indicator of a fast website. You should consider overall perceived time and actual download time as factors as well.
  
  CloudFlare [talked about one aspect of this](http://blog.cloudflare.com/ttfb-time-to-first-byte-considered-meaningles/) on their blog... for example: with Gzip compression, the web server has to wait while it compresses the output then send it along. That adds to your TTFB. So on first blush, gzip compression would appear to be a bad thing but in reality, your overall download time and file size shrink, and as a result, it's an easy win.
  
  If your content doesn't change all that much, when you get your Craft site up live, you might also want to consider caching on the server level as well, either with Nginx (fastcgi\_cache) or something like Varnish in front of Apache. Those layers add complexity (e.g. when and how to clear the cache?) but it'll get you super fast output if that's your goal.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Very good points @username_2 - I'm also considering Fastly as outlined here - http://onedesigncompany.com/news/high-performance-craft-caching-with-fastly  
  > **username_2**: Yes, regardless of whether you go for a static page cache or not, a CDN is is going to help your images and other static assets and unlike other CMSes, Craft makes it super uncomplicated to set it up. Fastly is awesome if you have a ton of traffic but their minimum spend is $50 so you may want to consider other CDNs too. AWS lets you use Cloudfront in their free tier, something to consider if your traffic is under 50 GB.  
  > **username_0**: Yeah, Fastly does looks sweet, but soon noticed that $50 min :) Will definitely check out CloudFront. Thanks so much for your thoughts and suggestions!  
  > **username_0**: Also - Craft makes everything uncomplicated to setup :)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-11-19. Score: 3
  
  There is an excellent article on [optimizing performance in craft](http://www.patpohler.com/performance-optimization-craft-cms/) from Pat Pohler you might want to check out. He goes through every detail meticulously looking for speed load gains. Good read.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: It is indeed a great article, and one that I've followed to the letter. However, still getting that delay until first byte as username_1 mentions. Thanks!  
  
  ---
  
  