- \n
- Guideline based on the resources provided, although if most are cached and the site is efficient this may be exceeded dramatically, as we don't artificially limit pageviews.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Performance Review<\/h2>\n
Load Storm<\/h3>\n
\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n <\/colgroup>\n \n Plan<\/td>\n Total Requests<\/td>\n Total Errors<\/td>\n Peak RPS<\/td>\n Average RPS<\/td>\n Peak Response Time(ms)<\/td>\n Average Response Time (ms)<\/td>\n Total Data Transferred (GB)<\/td>\n Peak Throughput (MB\/s)<\/td>\n Average Throughput (MB\/s)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <$25<\/td>\n 449,766<\/td>\n 93<\/td>\n 365.18<\/td>\n 249.87<\/td>\n 15,096<\/td>\n 419<\/td>\n 25.38<\/td>\n 21.35<\/td>\n 14.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n $25-50<\/td>\n 455,551<\/td>\n 16<\/td>\n 360.55<\/td>\n 253.08<\/td>\n 15,099<\/td>\n 401<\/td>\n 25.72<\/td>\n 21.06<\/td>\n 14.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Sources: https:\/\/pro.loadstorm.com\/#!test\/562070<\/a>, https:\/\/pro.loadstorm.com\/#!test\/562159<\/a><\/p>\n
The Load Storm test is designed to simulate real users coming to the site, logging in and browsing the site bursting some of the caching mechanisms typically found on managed WordPress hosts.<\/p>\n
In both tests there were minimal errors and the average response time was stable at just over 400ms. The tests at these price tiers are identical, so it's logical that the more expensive plan slightly outperformed the cheaper one.<\/p>\n
Load Impact<\/h3>\n
\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/colgroup>\n \n <\/td>\n Requests<\/td>\n Errors<\/td>\n Data Transferred (GB)<\/td>\n Peak Average Load Time (Seconds)<\/td>\n Peak Average Bandwidth (Mbps)<\/td>\n \n \nPeak Average Requests\/Sec<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n <$25<\/td>\n 339672<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n 18.26<\/td>\n 0.412<\/td>\n 300.6<\/td>\n 682<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n $25-50<\/a><\/td>\n 338834<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n 18.19<\/td>\n 0.398<\/td>\n 302<\/td>\n 688<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Source:\u00a0<25<\/a>,\u00a025-50<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n
The Load Impact test makes sure static caching is effective so that if a page gets a lot of traffic the site will keep responding without issue.<\/p>\n
\n
\n \n\n <\/colgroup>\n \n PHP Bench<\/td>\n WP Bench<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.678<\/td>\n 1388.888889<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.726<\/td>\n 1288.659794<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n \n\n \n <\/colgroup>\n \n <\/td>\n <25 Load Time<\/td>\n 25-50 Load Time<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Dulles<\/td>\n 0.429<\/td>\n 0.429<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Denver<\/td>\n 1.212<\/td>\n 1.118<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n LA<\/td>\n 0.843<\/td>\n 0.797<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n London<\/td>\n 1.169<\/td>\n 1.173<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Frankfurt<\/td>\n 1.091<\/td>\n 1.186<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Rose Hill, Mauritius<\/td>\n 2.435<\/td>\n 2.436<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Singapore<\/td>\n 1.863<\/td>\n 1.728<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Mumbai<\/td>\n 2.33<\/td>\n 2.098<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Japan<\/td>\n 1.292<\/td>\n 1.304<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sydney<\/td>\n 1.762<\/td>\n 1.771<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Brazil<\/td>\n 1.511<\/td>\n 1.479<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Nothing much to say about the WebPageTest results. They were decidedly normal which is what most people need unless you're targeting a specific geographic region.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
![\"lightning-base-logo\"](\"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/lightning-base-logo-625x113.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"