

Turns Out Compression is Good for Image Heavy Sites - lmacvittie
http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2010/03/30/turns-out-compression-is-good-for-image-heavy-sites.aspx

======
aw3c2
I tried reading it twice but all the bullshit bingo keywords made it
impossible for me the get the conclusion. If compression makes the data you
have to send smaller, then use compression, duh.

Also submitter(-ess) seems to be using hn only to submit his/her own stories.

~~~
gjm11
The key point is actually taken from someone else's blog post at
[http://jetnexus.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-does-
application-a...](http://jetnexus.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-does-application-
acceleration-mean.html), and it's this:

You might think that there's no point using transparent compression for a
website most of whose content is in images, since image files generally
compress poorly if at all. However,

1\. those images are presumably embedded in web pages, and if compressing
_those_ gets them to the user faster then it's a win;

2\. many of those images will already be in the browser cache, so the fraction
of your traffic that's in images may be smaller than you think.

------
volomike
Working with a sysop the other day in my new client's company, he said he
refuses to permit Apache compression because it sucks up too much RAM. I said
it also reduces network bandwidth, but he didn't care. What have you found
with Apache compression? Good? Bad?

