My company and I have been using an e-commerce platform called Really East Cart for the past year or so, and a couple of months ago we were told we had exceeded our bandwidth (50GB) and we would need to buy more.
We did not understand how we could exceed it, when we only have around 600 products, and have an average of 60,000 page views per month. Anyway, we upgraded our bandwidth, to only be told we have now exceeded our 75GB limit and would now need 100GB per month.
This seemed excessive, but I think I might have identified the issue.
Please do correct me if anything I write below is incorrect
On the majority of ecommerce sites I have come across, when a visitor looks at "All products" (for example), they will see a grid of the products in the store, with thumbnail images of each. As far as I understand, the thumbnails are GENUINE thumbnails (150px x 150px) and were generated by the system when they were uploaded.
However, our system does not automatically generate any thumbnails when product images are uploaded, and instead "thumbnails" are simply the full-sized 600x600 images FORCE-RESIZED using PHP. No genuine thumbnails are created at all. If I right-click one of these faux-thumbnail images and visit the URL of the image, the image is 600x600, NOT 150x150.
Am I right in saying that this is a very uneconomical way of displaying images?
Rather than loading thirty 150x150 images (5kb each on average), the browser loads thirty 600x600 and simply force-resizes the images.
IF I'm correct, then this is potentially the culprit that is causing us to overrun our bandwidth.
Some rough maths shows how uneconomical it is:
If a browser loads 30
product images (in the grid), all of which are around 50kb
, then the total size of these images is 1.5mb (not taking into account the total size of the entire page).
It would only take 731
page loads to reach 1GB.
30 x 50kb = 1.5mb
1.5mb x 731 = 1GB
However, if genuine thumbnails are created and loaded (each around 5kb
), then a page of 30
product images only makes 150kb
To reach 1GB, the images would have to be loaded 7,000 times
. This is approximately 10 TIMES more economical, and would use far less bandwidth.
Am I right in thinking this is the case?
Any help is greatly appreciated,