Cutting down website waste

Understanding TCP-IP packets

[Jeremy_H]

I'm using the Website Optimization website, and "Speed Up Your Site" book to help me trim down some of the fat on my site.

The site says "Ideally each image should be less than 1160 bytes, to easily fit into one TCP-IP packet."

I have eight images, but three are over 1160 bytes. They are 1611, 1334, 1299 bytes to be exact.

Does that mean that the server actually sends two 1160 packets for each of the images, since they each can't fit into one? Meaning even though the files are 4244 bytes in total, 6960 bytes are actually transferred? Resulting in 39% waste for these three images?

I'm not fully understanding this TCP-IP packet thing, and was hoping somebody could shine some light on it for me.

Thanks!

[JAB Creations]

If you're using the WebSiteOptimization.com speed validator do not take it too seriously. Yes there are some valid points and it is a GOOD thing that you are keeping in mind that roughly half the people online still have a dialup connection. However that validator (if it is the one you are using) is extremely too conservative for moderate to advanced (x)html websites.

If you're looking for advice on how to reduce your image's size you will probally enjoy (or become totally confused) by my WembasterWorld extreme graphics optimization post...

[webmasterworld.com...]

As far as packets go I've never considered image size in regards to packet size. I'd imagine it would have at least a minimal impact considering if your max allowed packet size was 64(?bytes?) and your image was 65(?bytes?). You'd end up having to send another packet for eight stinking bits in that scenerio...but I don't know jack about packets in this regard. Anyone care for a followup? ;)

[Don_Hoagie]

I too reference that site to see how my optimization is going... but only to grab the stats from my page, and not to listen to the site's decade-old rhetoric about TCP-IP packets. Not to bash the site... it's definitely a nifty tool. Maybe it could use a 2.0 version for broadband though.

Once again, and really this phrase should be up top next to the WebmasterWorld logo- IT ALL DEPENDS.

If your end-users are mainly 28.8 or 56k dialer-uppers, then maybe you might consider rounding down your file sizes to fit more cozily into a packet (you have the jist of packets correct). But if you have a lot of broadband or "accelerated dialup" users, this is basically the equivalent of clipping the stray strands of your living room carpet with toenail scissors... it's more paranoia than optimization.