IIS 7 Compression. Good? Bad? How much?

IIS 7 Compression. Good? Bad? How much?

If you haven't properly utilized compression in IIS, you're missing out on a lot!  Compression is a trade-off of CPU for Bandwidth.  With the expense of bandwidth and relative abundance of CPU, it's an easy trade-off.  Yet, are you sure that your server is tuned optimally?  I wasn't, which is why I finally sat down to find out for sure.  I'll share the findings here.
A few years ago I wrote about compression on IIS 6.  With IIS 6, the Microsoft defaults were a long ways off of the optimum settings, and a number of changes were necessary before IIS Compression worked well.  My goal here is to dig deep into IIS 7 compression and find out the impact that the various compression levels have, and to see how much adjusting is needed to finely tune a Windows web server.
Note: If you don't care about all the details, jump right down to the conclusion.  I've made sure to put the key review information there.

What's my purpose here?

 To find out the bandwidth savings for the different compression levels, contrast them against the performance impact on the system and come up with a recommended configuration.

Understanding IIS 7 and its Differences from IIS 6

IIS 6 allowed compression per extension type (i.e. aspx, html, txt, etc) and allowed it to be turned on and off per site, folder or file.  Making changes wasn't easy to do, but it was possible with a bit of scripting or editing of the metabase file directly.
IIS 7 changes this somewhat.  Instead of compression per extension, it's per mime type.   Additionally, it's easier to enable or disable compression per server/site/folder/file in IIS 7.  It's configurable from IIS Manager, Appcmd.exe, web.config and all programming APIs.
Additionally, IIS 7 gives the ability to have compression automatically stopped when the CPU on the server is above a set threshold.  This means that when CPU is freely available, compression will be applied, but when CPU isn't available, it is temporarily disabled so that it won't overburden the server.  Thanks IIS team!  These settings are easily configurable, which I'll cover more in a future blog post.
Both IIS6 and IIS7 allow 11 levels of compression (actually 'Off' and 10 levels of 'On').  The goal for this post is to compare the various levels and see the impact of each.

Objectives and Rules

The first thing I had to do was determine what tests I wanted to run, and how I could achieve them.  I also wanted to ensure that I could clearly see the differences between the various levels.  Here are some key objectives that I set for myself:

1. Various file sizes: All tests had to be applied to various sizes of files.  I initially tested using the default IIS7 homepage (689bytes), a 4kb file, a 28kb file and a 516kb file.  I figured that would give a good range of common file sizes.
   
   As it turned out, part way through I discovered that performance is severely affected on files of about 200kb and greater, so I did another series of tests on 100kb, 200kb, 400kb and 800kb files.
    
2. Test compression only:  It was important to me that compression was the only factor and that other variables didn't cloud the picture.  For that reason, all of my test pages generate almost no CPU on their own.  Almost all of the CPU increases in my tests are from compression only.
    
3. Compression ratio:  I used Port 80 Software's free online web tool to get the compression amount.
    
4. Stress Testing:  I used Microsoft's free WCAT tool.  For the heavy load testing I used two WCAT client servers so that I can test the IIS server to the limit.  One client couldn't quite bring the IIS server to 100% CPU.
    
5. Baseline Transactions per Second: After testing for a while, I realized that the most useful data was with a fixed trans/sec goal.  Otherwise, if I tested with a virtually instant page and thousands of transactions per second, the compression resource usage is unrealistic and the data confusing.  Very few real-life IIS servers handle thousands of very-fast pages per second.  So, to make the numbers more useful, I added a 125ms delay to each page so that my server could serve up 120trans/sec with 0% CPU when compression is turned off.
    
6. Compression at all CPU Levels: I had to turn off the CPU roll-off so that all pages are compressed, even at 100% CPU.  IIS 7's default setting of CPU roll-off is great, but it gets in the way of this testing.
    
7. Solid Computer: Since compression is CPU bound, it's important that the server isn't a dinosaur.  The test server is a Dell M600 with a Quad Core Intel Xeon processor (E5405 @ 2.00Ghz). The server only has 1GB of RAM but the physical memory was never used up for these tests, so it had all the memory that it needed.  The disks are SAS, 10K RPM in a RAID 1 configuration.

I'll include the raw data at the bottom of the post for anyone that is interested.
Let's take a look at the results.

Compression Levels

As shown in the graph here, the largest increase was between compression level 3 and 4.  After that, the compression improvements were very gradual.  However, if you check out the raw data below though, every level offered at least some incremental benefit.

Time to First Byte

Here's a fun test I've always wanted to do, but never got around to it.  I was curious how quickly a compressed vs. a non-compressed page would load under minimal server load.  In other words, if there is plenty of CPU to spare, does a compressed page load at near line-speed?  While both Time to First Byte (TTFB)--when the page starts to load--and Time to Last Byte (TTLB)--when the page finishes loading--are valuable, I felt that the TTFB gave the picture that I needed.

As you can see, all but the 516kb came in at about 0 milliseconds, even compressed.  Note that the 28kb and 4kb lines are hidden behind the 689 bytes line.  Even the 516kb file came in at under 80ms.  What's 80ms??  That's very low unless you have a really busy site.  As far as I'm concerned from this data, even a 516kb file loads at line speed as long as the server isn't bogged down.  
Let's think about the 80ms a bit more.  Dynamic pages, database calls and other factors play a much bigger role.  Plus, the <80ms saves over 300kb on the page transfer, which is a savings of 2.34 seconds on a 1Mbps line!  (Calculation based on: 300kbytes savings.  A 1Mbps line will transfer 1024Kbps/8 = 128KB per second.  300/128KB/s = 2.34 seconds)
All of the smaller pages load almost instantly, so the impression that the end user gets from a non-pegged server is going to be better with compression on.  Note that my testing doesn't take Internet latency and limits into account.  So, as long as the server can compress it at near line speed, it's going to benefit the site visitor all the more.

CPU Perspective

The following two charts are from a second round of testing that I did, so the file sizes are different than in the previous test.  In my first round of testing I found that the file size makes a huge difference.  With anything under 100kb, the compression overhead is almost non-existent.  However, once you have file sizes of a couple hundred kb or greater, the CPU overhead is significant.
I ran the tests on 100kb, 200kb, 400kb and 800kb files.  To put the size in perspective, I spent a good 10 minutes getting content from various sites to come up with 800kb of text.  I used pages like this from Scott Guthrie's blog, and it still took multiple pages to collect 800kb of text.  That particular page only has 145kb of text on it, but it's 440kb in size because of the HTML mark-up.  So, a 400kb file isn't overly common (not many people have as many blog comments as Scott Gu), but it's certainly possible.
To obtain a good CPU chart, I had to use some trickery.  I wanted to create a test where I could hit the server as hard as a heavily utilized server is hit, but somehow keep non-compression related CPU to 0.  I achieved this by using System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(125) in the pages.  This sets a 125ms delay that doesn't use any CPU.  Then I set the WCAT thread count to 30 per server (2 WCAT client computers).  This became my baseline since, with these settings, the IIS server handled 120 Transactions/second.  From looking at some busy production servers here at ORCS Web, I concluded that that was a reasonable level for a busy server.  The CPU load without compression was nearly zero, so I was pleased with this test case. 

I found this the most interesting.  Notice that each file size hit a sweet spot at a different compression level.  For example, if you figure that your files are mostly 200kb and smaller, you may want to use Compression Level 4, which uses almost no CPU for a 200kb file. 
This is on a Quad Core server, targeting 120 transactions/second.  As you can see, if you plan to have that level of traffic on your server, and your file sizes are into the hundreds of kilobytes, you may want to watch the compression utilization on the server.  It may be using more resources that you realize.  I don't think most people have much to worry about though as the average page size is less than 100kb, and the load on the average server is often much less than 120 transactions/second.
I'll mention more in the conclusion, but it's worth briefly mentioning now that you should consider having different compression levels for static and dynamic content.  Static content is compressed and cached, so it's only compressed once until the next time the file is changed.  For that reason, you probably don't care too much about the CPU overhead and can go with a setting of 9. 
On the other hand, dynamic pages are compressed every time (for the most part, although further details on cached dynamic pages can be found here).  So, the setting for the dynamic compression level is much more important to understand.
This also lets us realize that it would be foolish to turn on compression just for the fun of it.  Formats that don't compress much (or are already compressed) like JPG's, EXE's, ZIP's and the like, are often large and the CPU overhead to try to compress them further could be substantial.  These aren't compressed by default in IIS 7.

Transactions per Second

Just as a reminder, my goal was to start with 120 transactions/sec.  The server could handle much more, but this was controlled so that 120 was considered the base.  That was achieved with <1% CPU when non-compressed.
Notice that 100kb and 200kb files can still be served up at nearly the same rate.  Once you get to 800kb file sizes though, the server spends massive computing power to compress each page.  Part of that isn't just compression related.  Notice that even with compression turned off, IIS could only serve up 80 Transactions/sec using the same WCAT settings.  However, the transacctions/sec drops off considerably with each compression level.

Conclusion

So, what is my recommendation?  Your mileage will vary, depending on the types of files that you serve up and how active your involvement in the server is.
One great feature that IIS 7 offers is the CPU roll-off.  When CPU gets beyond a certain level, IIS will stop compressing pages, and when it drops below a different level, it will start up again.  This is controlled by the staticCompressionEnableCpuUsage and dynamicCompressionDisableCpuUsage attributes.  That in itself offers a large safety net, protecting you from any surprises.
Based on the data collected, the sweet spot seems to be compression level 4.  It's between 3 and 4 that the compression benefit jumps, but it's between 4 and 5 that the resource usage jumps, making 4 a nice balance between ‘almost full compression levels' and ‘not quite as bad on resource usage'.
Since static files are only compressed once until they are changed again, it's safe to leave them at the default level of 7, or even move it all the way to 9 if you want to compress every last bit out of it.  Unless you have thousands of files that aren't individually called very often, I recommend the higher the better.
For dynamic, there is a lot to consider.  If you have a server that isn't CPU heavy, and you actively administer the server, then crank up the level as far as it will go.  If you are worried that you'll forget about compression in the future when the server gets busier, and you want a safe setting that you can set and forget, then leave at the default of 0, or move to 4.
Make sure that you don't compress non-compressible large files like JPG, GIF, EXE, ZIP.  Their native format already compresses them, and the extra attempts to compress them will use up valuable system resources, for little or no benefit.
Microsoft's default of 0 for dynamic and 7 for static is safe.  Not only is it safe, it is aggressive enough to give you ‘most' of the benefit of compression with minimal system resource overhead.  Don't forget that the default *does not* enable dynamic compression. 
My recommendation is, first and foremost, to make sure that you haven't forgotten to enable dynamic compression.  In almost all cases it's well worth it, unless bandwidth is free for you and you run your servers very hot (on CPU).  Since bandwidth is so much more expensive than CPU, moving forward I'll be suggesting 4 for dynamic and 9 for static to get the best balance of compression and system utilization.  At this setting, I can set and forget for the most part, although when I run into a situation when a server runs hot, I'll be sure to experiment with compression turned off to see what impact compression has in that situation.
Disclaimer: I've run these tests this last week and haven't fully burned in or tested these settings in production over time, so it's possible that my recommendation will change over time.  Use the data above and use my recommendations at your own risk.  That said, I feel comfortable with my recommendation for myself, if that means anything.  Additionally, at ORCS Web, we've run both static and dynamic at level 9 for years and have never attributed compression as the culprit to heavy CPU on production servers.  My test load of 120 transactions/sec is probably more than most production servers handle, so even 9 for both static and dynamic could be a safe setting in many situations.

The How

Here are some AppCmd.exe commands that you can use to make the changes, or to add to your build scripts.  Just paste them into the command prompt and you're good to go.  Watch for line breaks.
Enable Dynamic Compression, and ensure Static compression at the server level:

C:\Windows\System32\Inetsrv\Appcmd.exe set config -section:urlCompression -doStaticCompression:true -doDynamicCompression:true

Alternately, apply for just a single site (make sure to update the site name):

C:\Windows\System32\Inetsrv\Appcmd.exe set config "Site Name" -section:urlCompression -doStaticCompression:true -doDynamicCompression:true

To set the compression level, run the following (this can only be applied at the server level):

C:\Windows\System32\Inetsrv\Appcmd.exe set config -section:httpCompression -[name='gzip'].staticCompressionLevel:9 -[name='gzip'].dynamicCompressionLevel:4

IIS 7 only sets GZip by default. If you use Deflate, run the previous command for Deflate too.
Note that when changing the compression level, an IISReset is required for it to take effect.

Data

In case the raw data interests you, I've provided it here.
Compression ratio

Level	400kb Text		28kb Text		1kb Text		516kb text
	Size	%	Size	%	Size	%	Size	%
Off	3904	0%	28274	0%	689	0%	528834	0%
0	1713	57%	13878	51%	594	14%	238630	55%
1	1636	59%	12825	55%	588	15%	221751	59%
2	1597	60%	12342	57%	587	15%	213669	60%
3	1592	60%	11988	58%	587	15%	206795	61%
4	1434	64%	11400	60%	457	34%	190362	65%
5	1428	64%	11228	61%	457	34%	184649	66%
6	1428	64%	11158	61%	457	34%	181087	66%
7	1428	64%	11151	61%	457	34%	180620	66%
8	1428	64%	11150	61%	457	34%	180485	66%
9	1428	64%	11150	61%	457	34%	180481	66%

CPU Usage per Compression Level

Level	100kb		200kb		400kb		800kb
	CPU	T/sec	CPU	T/sec	CPU	T/sec	CPU	T/sec
Off	1%	120	1%	119	3%	103	6%	81
0	1%	125	1%	115	11%	117	65%	83
1	1%	112	1%	113	42%	103	59%	73
2	1%	126	1%	123	48%	103	65%	76
3	1%	122	2%	125	44%	107	79%	75
4	1%	120	2%	122	43%	95	79%	62
5	1%	120	44%	111	68%	79	90%	47
6	6%	117	47%	111	83%	75	95%	33
7	27%	105	57%	117	83%	70	98%	31
8	45%	105	60%	120	84%	66	98%	29
9	45%	90	60%	90	84%	66	98%	29

Time to First Byte (TTFB) - minimal load.  In milliseconds.

Level	4kb	28kb	689bytes	516kb
Off	0	0	0	0
0	0	0	0	15
1	0	0	0	24
2	0	0	0	26
3	0	0	0	33
4	0	0	0	40
5	0	0	0	57
6	0	0	0	78
7	0	0	0	79
8	0	0	0	78
9	0	0	0	78

Posted: Feb 22 2009, 12:45 PM by OWScott | with 37 comment(s)

Filed under: IIS, IIS7

Comments

Dominic Pettifer said:

That was a great article on IIS compression. I didn't know about the different compression levels, in IIS7 it just gives me the option to enable or disable it, I'll have to dig deeper into the configuration files.
I take it images such as jpeg/png/gif will count as static files and thus be compressed once then cached? What if you're serving a jpeg image dynamically in code (using GDI+ in .NET for instance, say for a CAPTCHA image), that would get compressed for each hit would it not? Is it possible to enable GZIP globally then disable on a page by page basis?

# February 23, 2009 4:44 AM

DotNetShoutout said:

Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from DotNetShoutout

# February 23, 2009 5:35 AM

IIS 7 Compression. Good? Bad? How much? | BH-Server said:

Pingback from  IIS 7 Compression. Good? Bad? How much? | BH-Server

# February 23, 2009 6:37 AM

Rovastar said:

Great article, really detailed by far the most detailed analysis into compression I've read.
I didn't know about the CPU roll-off with that I can include compression with confidence.
Did you notice any change in the amount of memory usage in these tests? Is there an increased footprint there?
It is surprising how many big/corp sites out there don't use compression at all. For hosters they are more keen on compression then some of the corp sites/infrastructures which I think sometimes have the fear that adding compression is a unnecessary complication (what if scenerios like CPU is freakly high and compression is just making it worse, they would rather just pay the excess bandwidth cost -if any, etc). For hosters bandwidth is much more of an important consideration.
Than again, I see many IIS defaults just left on as no-one changed them....

# February 23, 2009 9:32 AM

OWScott said:

Hi Dominic,
The compression levels are still not exposed in IIS Manager, so it does take some tweaking behind the scenes to get this right. IIS Manager exposes the ability to enable or disable at every object level, which is the key thing unless you want to do fine tuning of the advanced settings.
Yes, you can set it at the global level and then turn it off for anything that you want.
You're right that if a file is static, it will compress it and cache the compressed page. That will happen for extensions like jpg, jpeg or gif. However, if you dynamically server the images through a .aspx page, then it will be considered dynamic because of the PageHandlerFactory assignment in applicationHost.config.
For dynamic images from code, just make sure that your code outputs the mime type and you'll be set. That way IIS will treat it as an image and not try to compress it further, even if it's a .aspx extension. &nbsp;That's probably the best advantage of using mime types instead of extension types.

# February 23, 2009 9:32 AM

OWScott said:

Hi Rovastar,
I didn't watch for memory usage specifically, and to really test I would have had to use a large diversity of files rather than the single file testing I was doing.  I'm pretty sure that memory isn't an issue at all though, unless someone is compressing *massive* files (i.e. hundreds of MB).
When static files are compressed, they are saved to disk (the location is configurable), and when they are dynamically compressed, the work is done almost immediately, and I doubt any memory footprint from the compression is left behind.  While I didn't test or find out from the IIS team about this, I think it's safe assumption.
You're right that many people probably don't realize how beneficial compression is, and how easy it is to set.  As a web host, bandwidth is a large expense, both for us and for our customers, so the more bandwidth we can save, the better for everyone.

# February 23, 2009 10:35 AM

IIS 7 Compression. Good? Bad? How much? - Scott Forsyth's Blog - DotNetBurner said:

DotNetBurner.com - news and articles about .net DotNetBurner

# February 23, 2009 11:59 AM

Dave Tigweld said:

Any article on compression should warn that there will be a customer service cost for turning it on.
Its a known issues that (IE6 and 7) can have issues for some users. These users will not return to your site or will add additional calls for your support team due to hung pages.
Just search for "IE compression"
Examples:
Here:support.microsoft.com/.../837251
Here:support.microsoft.com/.../823386
Here:dangermoose.blogspot.com/.../gzip-compression-and-ie-do-not-mix.html
Due to all of the calls we got from support for page hangs for IE6 and 7 we had to shut it off. Although the majority of users were fine, 3% or so were having problems. Unfortunately, we had to set a rule set on the compression hardware only to compress for firefox users because we had so many support calls for page hangs from IE users.
Heres what happens on the client side: The client sees a blank white page. If the client clicks to view source, they see about only half of the html that should be there. Sometimes you can help the client correct the issue by upgrading browsers, but it hasn't always proved successful.

# February 23, 2009 1:15 PM

Marc Brooks said:

Awesome testing. As always, the best advice is to enable cache on the static resources and keep the dynamic page content small too.

# February 23, 2009 1:58 PM

OWScott said:

Hi Dave,
Thanks for mentioning that.  It is true that there are some issues with compression.  However, they are few and far between now.  Some builds of IE5 had some issues with JavaScript, and the links you provided were all for IE 6 SP1, pre-hotfix.  Those builds aren't generally in operation today.
To get around those early issues, at ORCS Web, we didn't have compression enabled by default for .js files on the IIS6 boxes.  With that configuration, we really don't get reports of issues with compression at all.  If there are issues, it's for a custom media or image app through a .aspx page where the issues occur.  For example, if someone writes their own media player within an .aspx page, we just need to disable compression for their media player page.  
We've had compression enabled on IIS7 since the beta days and I'm not aware of any complaints at all.
Do you still get reports of it happening nowadays, or is that an issue of that past?

# February 23, 2009 3:57 PM

SuperJason said:

Thank you very much for doing all of the work so that we don't have to! This is much more helpful than guessing the correct level.

# February 23, 2009 8:04 PM

Keith said:

The compression issue with hardware compression and ~3% of IE users mentioned above may relate to only chunk-encoded pages.  If they are doing compression at the load balancer, they should be able to control that.
What do you think explains the sharp rise in CPU usage in the 100kb and 200kb tests?  They go from ~1%, which seems almost impossible, to 44%+ between levels, but not at the same level.  Could it be kernel memory constraints or something else coming in to play?

# February 24, 2009 8:51 AM

Dave Tigweld said:

Last time we had compression on for IE7 on was July. We tried only turning on for IE7 users not IE 6. Still calls came in.
We do our compression on the load balancer not the webservers.
We were originally doing compression on a Cisco CSS but replaced it with a NetScaler. Bought the Netscaler because it was much easier to configure compression based on the user agent with the hopes that at least compression could be on for IE7 users.
Had high hopes for IE7 but alas still was about 3% of users getting the random page hangs so we had to shut it off.
I should note that our site is secure(https) so maybe thats why I see more issues with page hangs over those people who are strictly running non secure.

# February 24, 2009 3:20 PM

OWScott said:

Hi Keith,
That's a good question.  There is a lot to know about compression and the various algorithms, and I won't claim to know the details on the algorithms themselves.
My assumption isn't that the kernel memory is coming into play in terms of CPU utilization, but you never know.  The steps are significient, as you pointed out.
I did see on interesting piece of information that WenJun Zhang from Microsoft posted here: www.eggheadcafe.com/.../dynamic-compression-iis-7.aspx.  He mentioned that levels 0 to 3 use one algorithm, level 4 to 9 uses another, and level 10 uses another.  So, that probably accounts for the large jumps between levels too.

# February 24, 2009 5:01 PM

OWScott said:

Hi Dave,
That's good to know for sure although I haven't seen the same.  I've worked with servers serving up a large diverse range of pages and sites, to a very diverse audience, and the compression complaints are almost nill.  Most issues are all-or-nothing type issues on certain types of pages.  
(I assume when you say IE6/7, you meant IIS6/7.)
I wonder if the hangs could be occurring from something related to your environment or specific site?  If you're talking 3% affected (that's a lot!), I can't imagine that being from compression, unless compression somehow compounds the situation.
It's good to be aware of the potential risk with compression though, as there is always some risk when something new is brought into the equation.

# February 24, 2009 5:08 PM

DotNetKicks.com said:

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com

# February 24, 2009 6:16 PM

Web Development Community said:

You are voted (great) - Trackback from Web Development Community

# February 24, 2009 10:43 PM

Yevgeni Frolov said:

In one of my previous post about IIS 7.0 data compression I’ve described how to enable this functionality

# February 25, 2009 2:11 AM

gOODiDEA.NET said:

Web Implementing Prototype’s Array Methods in jQuery IIS 7 Compression. Good? Bad? How much? - Troubleshooting

# February 26, 2009 9:26 PM

gOODiDEA said:

WebImplementingPrototype’sArrayMethodsinjQueryIIS7Compression.Good?Bad?Howmuch?...

# February 26, 2009 9:32 PM

madristaa said:

hello friends,
i m using vista and have installed iis 7.0  
I want to know how can i change the compression level?
as httzip and zipenable doesnot work on vista
Please let me know asap as i am going to have this as a subtopic of my research....
thks

# March 30, 2009 8:39 PM

OWScott said:

Hi Madristaa.  Do a search on this page for "The How".  It's close to the end.  In there I post the command that will allow you to change the compression level.  I believe that's what you're looking for.

# March 31, 2009 11:19 PM

madristaa said:

Yeahh i was looking for that code...But I have created a Sites using IIS Manager. How to enable dynamic compression for that particular site...I used your code but is not able to do enable dynamic compression for that particular sites.
thanks in advance..

# April 3, 2009 9:39 PM

OWScott said:

Ok, got ya.  It's the second code examples that you need then.  Use the following to enable dynamic and static compression for a particular site.  If you don't want to enable static compression, just remove that parameter.  Just change "site name" with your site name.
C:\Windows\System32\Inetsrv\Appcmd.exe set config "site name" -section:urlCompression -doStaticCompression:true -doDynamicCompression:true

# April 4, 2009 10:40 AM

madristaa said:

thanks for your reply.
How can i measure the compression ratio. You have used port 80 software. But they don't work on Windows Vista..I am doing the testing on my local host i.e on my laptop. which open source software will help me out to find the compression ratio for different compression level.

# April 6, 2009 11:34 AM

OWScott said:

Madristaa,
If port 80 software isn't reporting it compressed for Vista, something on Vista probably isn't configured correctly.  Port 80 softwere is a web based tool that should work as long as you have your site exposed to the Internet.
To check it with a local tool. use Firebug in Firefox.  That's easy to do, and if you check the Response Headers, you should see the following if it's compressed: "Content-Encoding: gzip".  Also, the file size will be different.
You can use Fiddler2 instead if you want: www.fiddler2.com/fiddler2.  That works with IE.

# April 6, 2009 5:15 PM

AMF, E4X (XML) and Cold Fusion/IIS Compression | A coffee and a slice of Flex said:

Pingback from  AMF, E4X (XML) and Cold Fusion/IIS Compression | A coffee and a slice of Flex

# April 19, 2009 12:41 AM

Bia Securities said:

DmbStream is starting to gain some momentum and I want the site to be received as fast as possible. It has over 1,100 registered users now, so every little optimization helps. I used YSlow to pinpoint some of the major issues with the site and it really

# April 22, 2009 12:46 AM

A Few Speed Improvements - Blog – Stack Overflow said:

Pingback from  A Few Speed Improvements - Blog &#8211; Stack Overflow

# August 9, 2009 7:27 PM

Codeharder said:

Performance Tuning Does Matter

# August 10, 2009 7:55 PM

L??m??labs » Delicious Bookmarks for August 10th through August 11th said:

Pingback from  L??m??labs  &raquo; Delicious Bookmarks for August 10th through August 11th

# August 11, 2009 5:43 PM

Web 2.0 said:

How to improve the performance of ASP.NET MVC web application

# September 6, 2009 11:42 AM

WOMBAT said:

Optimising an ASP.NET website using IIS

# October 22, 2009 9:37 AM

Speed Up Your Web Site With HTTP Compression in IIS 7 | Quantum of Geek said:

Pingback from  Speed Up Your Web Site With HTTP Compression in IIS 7 | Quantum of Geek

# March 18, 2010 2:15 AM

IIS 7 e compressione http « Amministrazione Server e Assistenza Tecnica said:

Pingback from  IIS 7 e compressione http &laquo;  Amministrazione Server e Assistenza Tecnica

# May 12, 2010 8:06 AM

IIS 7 e compressione http said:

Pingback from  IIS 7 e compressione http

# May 19, 2010 2:57 PM

Best Practice No 4:- Improve bandwidth performance of ASP.NET sites using IIS compression » Technology Articles - Technology And Programming Articles said:

Pingback from  Best Practice No 4:- Improve bandwidth performance of ASP.NET sites using IIS compression &raquo; Technology Articles - Technology And Programming Articles