Niko­la ge­ne­ra­tes sta­tic si­tes, so load tes­ting it is not ve­ry in­te­res­tin­g, ex­cept as a ben­ch­ma­rk for the di­ffe­ren­ce be­tween sta­tic and dy­na­mic si­tes.

To­day I was told about bli­tz.io and sin­ce a qui­ck test is free, I thou­gh­t, why no­t? The re­sult is qui­te im­pres­si­ve: a cheap VP­S, using ga­tling as a web ser­ve­r, whi­ch is al­most con­fi­gu­ra­tio­n-­free and not meant for ex­tre­me­ly hi­gh load­s, can hand­le rou­gh­ly 9 mi­llion dai­ly hi­ts.

Let me say that agai­n: 9 mi­llion hi­ts. On a un­con­fi­gu­red $5 ser­ve­r. He­re's the re­port

How mu­ch tu­ning does it take for a wor­dpress ins­tan­ce to ser­ve tha­t? On what har­dwa­re?

And tha­t's on­ly half the pic­tu­re. Not on­ly are Niko­la's sta­tic pa­ges in­cre­di­bly li­ght on your ser­ve­r, we ha­ve al­so spent a lot of effort tr­ying to make in­di­vi­dual pa­ges load fas­t, for a be­tter user ex­pe­rien­ce. So­me of the te­ch­ni­ques us­ed for fas­t-­loading si­tes are:

• Using we­­ba­sse­­ts to bun­d­­le CSS and JS in­­to si­n­­gle fi­­le­s.

• Au­­to­­­ma­­tic su­­pport for CD­Ns for the co­­­m­­mon JS li­­bra­­ries

• Su­­pport for tran­s­­pa­­ren­­tly using HT­­M­­L/­­CSS/­­JS/I­­ma­­ge co­m­­pres­­sion tools

So, if you try so­me­thing like YS­lo­w! on a Niko­la si­te, it wi­ll gi­ve you a sco­re of rou­gh­ly 93 up to 98 (out of 100) de­pen­ding on your web­ser­ver con­fi­gu­ra­tio­n.

BTW: I rea­lly want to get that up to 100. Rea­lly want it

So, re­mem­be­r, if your si­te can be ser­ved sta­ti­ca­ll­y, it's going to be chea­pe­r, fas­te­r, safe­r. And if you ever get 9 mi­llion hi­ts a da­y, it wi­ll be avai­la­ble.

Disclaimer:

Bli­tz.io is sen­ding me a t-s­hirt ;-)