Product Carousel considerably lowering page load t

Hi,

I've been having slow load times on the front page of my shop ( www.geekbyte.com.au )
I asked my webhost about this and they found that the carousel may be causing the issues.

I've investigated my product carousel further by running firebug net tools and measuring the initial HTTP 200 GET time.

When the carousel module is enabled and displayed the response time varies between 1.5 seconds to 13 seconds
When I disable the carousel module - the response time drops down to around a 500 millisecond average.

I did this test several times throughout the day and it showed the same behaviour - google pagespeed insights also reported a better score when I had this module disabled.

I like the display of the module on my front page so I'm hoping I don't have to remove it in order to improve the loading time.

I took some quick notes with a before and after comparison below

Module is enabled:
Initial 200 HTTP get response time.
2.1 seconds
1.42 seconds
1.49 seconds
1.87 seconds
8.23 seconds
9.5 seconds
10.56 seconds
13.27 seconds
3.65 seconds
1.48 seconds
1.44 seconds
1.48 seconds



Module is disabled
Initial HTTP 200 GET response time
1.57 seconds
1.85 seconds
2.02 seconds
680 ms
620 ms
540 ms
480 ms
500 ms
500 ms
410 ms
420 ms
440 ms
510 ms
410 ms
450 ms

Re-enabled
3.51 seconds
1.49 seconds
(this carries on being high)


All the other pages of my shop show around a 300-500ms response time so i'm convinced this module is causing the problems.

Can you please assist or provide advice on what I can do to fix this?

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the reply - What you said sounds right about the image loading.
I'm guessing the page is waiting for the images to load on the carousel before proceeding with the rest of the site.
It would be good if the images could be pulled down only when they need to be displayed - would be a lot of work to develop that though.

I'll see what I can do for a workaround.. It might end up with me having to remove the carousel though

Great! Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give these a go and let you know if it makes an improvement.

Edit: ignore this Incorrect information