How Do I Compare Thee? Linode vs Bluehost Web Host Performance Shootout
By Product Management | March 29, 2013
If you are evaluating or switching hosting companies for your Web site, don't just ask for an SLA guarantee, but do a site performance shootout before you cut the check. Recently I wrote a post on Beta Program, a site that I created to highlight how businesses can use Web technologies to run their operations better, for everything from using Web-based accounting software to building a better, faster website. The article, Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who’s The Fastest Web Host Of Them All, demonstrated the performance gains I experienced when moving a website from Web hosting company Bluehost to Linode. For that article, I had focused on the overall user experience, concluding that the same site performance fluctuated between 1-2 seconds for Linode, compared to between 2-4 seconds for Bluehost.
A commentator asked "Vik– Just curious, when you ran your monitoring experiment comparing Linode to Bluehost, did you notice any trends in the performance details? Like significant differences in DNS lookup time, versus time to first byte, versus content components. Just wondering if the data reveals any specific “soft spots” with Bluehost?" I thought it would be useful to share my findings from this experiment on the Keynote Web performance blog.
Methodology. I took a website that was built on the LAMP stack - Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP - and duplicated it on both Bluehost and Linode Web hosts. In both cases, I used the lowest plan that was available, and with Linode this gave me a Virtual Private Server (VPS). I made very minor modifications to the site to make it work right on the Linode environment, along the lines of changing the value of some variables that referred to the root URL. Then, I used Keynote's IE browser monitoring agent to run measurements every 5 minutes from the US-8, a group of 8 cities in the US. You could use other products as well, including the free WebPageTest service, which I used to create the video of the two sites.These were all high-speed, high-bandwidth connections, and I was able to ensure that I had a clean lab of performance monitoring agents to conduct this test. My assertions here are made after observing over 2000 datapoints per day on each website, from Mar 6 until today, for about 3 weeks. For all datapoints, I used Arithmetic Mean (though I could have used 95th percentile or median or geometric mean if I so chose, and if I remembered high school math better).
Visually Comparing Site Speed. Using WebPageTest, I first ran a site speed comparison. This measurement was taken from a server in Dulles, VA, and the video shows how long it takes for the two sites to load in the same browser. It's a great first step to help you understand the site visitor's experience.
The site performance on Bluehost fluctuated between 2-3 seconds, and on LInode between 1.5-2 seconds. To answer the question on whether there were "soft spots" in Bluehost, I calculated the arithmetic mean on each of these performance metrics as well:
As you can tell, the big gains are in the network and server infrastructure. For example, it took Bluehost 448ms, almost half a second, to return the first byte of the Web page, whereas for Linode it was 39ms. If you look at all the content downloaded, there isn't much of a difference between the hosting companies - Linode is only 4% faster (though, at almost 1.5s, there is room for improvement with speed optimization on the website content itself).
Linode recently wrote about its network upgrades in an initiative called Linode Nextgen. It appears that their work is paying off, and if you host a website, you and your users would be well served by Linode.