Why so many big and little sites inserts static files ( css, images, js, ecc ) in a subdomain like media.example.com or s2.static.example.com ?
What are the advantages ?
Why not just a directory like example.com/media/ ?
|
Why so many big and little sites inserts static files ( css, images, js, ecc ) in a subdomain like media.example.com or s2.static.example.com ? What are the advantages ? Why not just a directory like example.com/media/ ? |
|||
|
|
|
I see at least three possible (good) reasons :
|
|||
|
|
|
The primary reason I think, is for cookies. Cookies will be sent along with every request, let's say if you have 2kb of cookie data and load 20 images on a page. That's an extra 40kb of data, multiply that by the number of page-views you have in a month, and you might be surprised about how much bandwidth you have lost in something useless, and bandwidth is not free... Also, cookies set on the top-level domain, are sent across all requests made to any subdomain, in those cases, is even recommended to buy a new domain to host the static components there, in a cookie-free domain. For example, StackOverflow uses sstatic.net, Yahoo uses yimg.com, YouTube uses ytimg.com, Amazon uses images-amazon.com, etc... Give a look to this: |
|||
|
|
|
To add to some of the answers above: Some web browsers can only download two files simultaneously from any domain. Serving static content from a different host name (or names - e.g. a.domain, b.domain, c.domain) allows these older browsers to download more files in parallel. |
|||
|
|
|
You can read about why it was done on stackoverflow in this blog post. Here's an extract:
This advise was taken from Yahoo's Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site |
|||
|
|