User | Post |
11:05 am April 1, 2011
| The Passive Income Earner
| | |
| Member | posts 152 |
|
|
|
Hi,
I was looking at installing a cache plugin and obviously there are many. Most are rated between 4 and 5 stars. I know that WP Super Cache was discussed on other thread but I was curious what the majority of fellow Yakezies are using as your experience means much more to me than the rating shown :)
Anyone else using a different one than WP Super Cache? Pros and Cons? Anything to avoid?
Thanks!
|
|
|
12:26 pm April 1, 2011
| Wojo
| | SW Florida | |
| Member | posts 57 |
|
|
|
I use W3 total cache. I like how many options it has and the integration with a lot of the most common CDNs for even faster site loan.
|
|
|
12:51 pm April 1, 2011
| Buy Like Buffett
| | |
| Member
| posts 1682 |
|
|
|
1:05 pm April 1, 2011
| Invest It Wisely
| | |
| Member
| posts 2019 |
|
|
|
WP Super Cache. From comparisons that I've read it's more than good enough unless you really need the extra customizability of other solutions.
Be sure to use it turned completely on, not in "half on" mode, and turn on compression and preloading, too. You will see a big speed boost.
If you don't mind spending the money though I think that faster hosting is better than caching, because some plugins just don't work properly with caching enabled like plugins that tailor your ads to the visitor or plugins that count statistics.
|
|
|
4:20 pm April 1, 2011
| Sunil from The Extra Money Blog
| | |
| Member | posts 362 |
|
|
|
I have used both WP and super cache and didn't notice the difference. using CDN has made a world of a difference however
|
The Extra Money Blog– Expedited Wealth Building Through Multiple Streams of Active & Passive Income (Entrepreneurship, Internet Marketing, Personal Finance)
|
|
5:31 pm April 1, 2011
| The College Investor
| | San Diego, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 1935 |
|
|
|
I used both W3 and WP Supercache. WP supercache only does page cache. If you have both installed, W3 will not page cache but will do everything else (broswer, object, etc). Since I have 8 plug-ins that I use regularly, the object cache of W3 is helpful. Super-cache is great if you suddenly get a huge spike, as after the first hit on a page, it cache it as HTML and then delivers the HTML page to all future hits.
By having both, I saw my initial load time decrease from around 8 seconds to 3-4 seconds, so a 50% improvement.
|
|
|
7:13 pm April 1, 2011
| The Passive Income Earner
| | |
| Member | posts 152 |
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback everyone! I am going to look at both.
|
|
|
7:24 pm April 1, 2011
| The Passive Income Earner
| | |
| Member | posts 152 |
|
|
|
May I ask a favor?
Since this morning, it has been really slow to view my site but I can access the word press admin site really fast. So I have just turned on W3 Cache to see if it improves. Everything seems good on the server side of my provider and I am curious if my site is just slow for me or for everyone. My domain hit a renewal this past 2 days but everything also look good on that front … I am just puzzle ?!?
Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
7:08 am April 2, 2011
| The College Investor
| | San Diego, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 1935 |
|
|
|
Very slow load for me this morning. Tried it twice…very slow.
|
|
|
8:03 am April 2, 2011
| Invest It Wisely
| | |
| Member
| posts 2019 |
|
|
|
The Passive Income Earner said:
May I ask a favor?
Since this morning, it has been really slow to view my site but I can access the word press admin site really fast. So I have just turned on W3 Cache to see if it improves. Everything seems good on the server side of my provider and I am curious if my site is just slow for me or for everyone. My domain hit a renewal this past 2 days but everything also look good on that front … I am just puzzle ?!?
Thanks for your time.
The sites I read were saying that W3 is more difficult to configure correctly and that out of the box it can be slower. I'm not sure what the problem could be but I found a few config guides through Google that might help out:
http://www.strictlyonlinebiz.c…..ress/1570/
http://www.wpbeginner.com/plug…..beginners/
|
|
|
8:06 am April 2, 2011
| Invest It Wisely
| | |
| Member
| posts 2019 |
|
|
|
actually I might try it out myself based on those guides to see if there is a substantive difference between W3 and WP Super Cache using self-hosted CDN.
|
|
|
8:41 am April 2, 2011
| Invest It Wisely
| | |
| Member
| posts 2019 |
|
|
|
I'm not sure how scientific this is, but I ran my own test using http://www.webpagetest.org/, turning on all the recommended features except for "don't cache pages for known users" in case that would affect the results (I believe it checks by cookie and not by login). I used IE8 as the test browser. Times to download everything:
WP Super Cache + WP Minify: first view: 5.8s, second view: 2.0s
WP Super Cache: first view: 6.3s, second view: 2.0s
Caching off: first view: 7.7s, second view: 2.8s
It seems a lot of the time for me is spent transferring images and things like that as well as pure latency on the hosting server's part (It was anywhere from 0.3 to 5 seconds to receive the first byte).
|
|
|
1:08 pm April 2, 2011
| moneysmarts
| | |
| Member | posts 240 | |
|
|
I used to use wp super cache, but use w3 total cache now. It seems to do the job, and does quite a bit more.
|
|
|
8:01 am April 3, 2011
| Glen Craig
| | |
| Member
| posts 1087 | |
|
|
11:39 am April 3, 2011
| The Passive Income Earner
| | |
| Member | posts 152 |
|
|
|
Performance is back to normal after 2 days of slow performance. Still puzzled …
I just wanted to share my experience with the cache plugin with regards to my problem. It did not help at all for the problem I had … I was quite puzzled for a while since the admin section of my WP site was faster than my site and cPanel was really fast. Anything I changed did not have an impact on my main site.
I am filing this one under a host provider issue and I have initiated a host provider move. Hostgator, here I come. They should be transferring my site over. I'll be testing the cache plugins again once I am moved.
|
|
|