[solved] First Byte Time optimization?

#1
I've got a few websites that are getting a failing mark on First Byte Time on webpagetest.org and other page speed/load time tests, and I am wondering what settings in Litespeed we should tweak (and to what parameters) to optimize this further?
 
#3
No, they don't. Should they?

I've tried them with LS Cache plugin (Wordpress) and the first byte results are still the same (failing marks), and not much has changed in that regard.
 

NiteWave

Administrator
#4
can you do tests on a specific web site to illustrate the issue accurately ?

using webpagetest.org as test tool
1. under apache, the TTFB (Time To First Byte)
2. under litespeed, the TTFB which not from cache (without response header: X-LiteSpeed-Cache:hit)
3. under litespeed, the TTFB which from cache (with response header: X-LiteSpeed-Cache:hit)
 
#5

NiteWave

Administrator
#6
tried to cache, but faild. so same result as "Litespeed without Cache"
only see headers like:
x-litespeed-cache-control: public,max-age=604800
x-litespeed-tag: 9061_URL.b315d12a9a6acd0b12d04b532e01b8e2,9061_F,9061_Po.802,9061_PGS,9061_
but not see
x-litespeed-cache:hit

most likely cache root for the website has problem.
ask your host to check the cache root for this website. in WHM/cPanel, default setting is /home/username/lscache.
check with
#ls -l /home/username/lscache
 
#7
A-ha! Found what it was... the cache files in /home/username/lscache folder were old and not updated with the new files, for whatever reason... or something was off. So I deleted that folder and all the content in it, re-enabled the latest LSCache, and voila - first byte time went from an F to an A.

Thank you for the help locating the issue...
 
#8
Ok, issue with First Byte timing again... it's taking 1.2 seconds to load a simple 50Kb HTML page + about 100Kb in javascripts/jquery scripts:

https://gtmetrix.com/reports/positiveparentingsolutions.com/Hpe8bZAI
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/180919_0R_6ab676bb7c1bbf24c30b12412933e6fc/


It makes no sense whatsoever... and I tested it on both GTMetrix and Webpagetest.org and the results are pretty similar.

No cache in place, obviously, as it's a static HTML file... so any ideas what I'd need to look at here, or optimize/tweak?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top