or “Duration includes Blocking”
Resource Timing is a great way to measure how quickly resources download. Unfortunately, almost everyone I’ve spoken with does this using the “duration” attribute and are not aware that “duration” includes blocking time. As a result, “duration” time values are (much) greater than the actual download time, giving developers unexpected results. This issue is especially bad for cross-origin resources where “duration” is the only metric available. In this post I describe the problem and a proposed solution.
Resource Timing review
The Resource Timing specification defines APIs for gathering timing metrics for each resource in a web page. It’s currently available in Chrome, Chrome for Android, IE 10-11, and Opera. You can gather a list of PerformanceEntry objects using getEntries(), getEntriesByType(), and getEntriesByName(). A PerformanceEntry has these properties:
- name – the URL
- entryType – typically “resource”
- startTime – time that the resource started getting processed (in milliseconds relative to page navigation)
- duration – total time to process the resource (in milliseconds)
The properties above are available for all resources – both same-origin and cross-origin. However, same-origin resources have additional properties available as defined by the PerformanceResourceTiming interface. They’re self-explanatory and occur pretty much in this chronological order:
Here’s the canonical processing model graphic that shows the different phases. Note that “duration” is equal to (responseEnd – startTime).
Take a look at my post Resource Timing Practical Tips for more information on how to use Resource Timing.
Unexpected blocking bloat in “duration”
The detailed PerformanceResourceTiming properties are restricted to same-origin resources for privacy reasons. (Note that any resource can be made “same-origin” by using the Timing-Allow-Origin response header.) About half of the resources on today’s websites are cross-origin, so “duration” is the only way to measure their load time. And even for same-origin resources, “duration” is the only delta provided, presumably because it’s the most important phase to measure. As a result, all of the Resource Timing implementations I’ve seen use “duration” as the primary performance metric.
Unfortunately, “duration” is more than download time. It also includes “blocking time” - the delay between when the browser realizes it needs to download a resource to the time that it actually starts downloading the resource. Blocking can occur in several situations. The most typical is when there are more resources than TCP connections. Most browsers only open 6 TCP connections per hostname, the exceptions being IE10 (8 connections), and IE11 (12 connections).
This Resource Timing blocking test page has 16 images, so some images incur blocking time no matter which browser is used. Each of the images is programmed on the server to have a 1 second delay. The “startTime” and “duration” are displayed for each of the 16 images. Here are WebPagetest results for this test page being loaded in Chrome, IE10, and IE11. You can look at the screenshots to read the timing results. Note how “startTime” is approximately the same for all images. That’s because this is the time that the browser parsed the IMG tag and realized it needed to download the resource. But the “duration” values increase in steps of ~1 second for the images that occur later in the page. This is because they are blocked from downloading by the earlier images.
In Chrome, for example, the images are downloaded in three sets – because Chrome only downloads 6 resources at a time. The first six images have a “duration” of ~1.3 seconds (the 1 second backend delay plus some time for establishing the TCP connections and downloading the response body). The next six images have a “duration” of ~2.5 seconds. The last four images have a “duration” of ~3.7 seconds. The second set is blocked for ~1 second waiting for the first set to finish. The third set is blocked for ~2 seconds waiting for sets 1 & 2 to finish.
Even though the “duration” values increase from 1 to 2 to 3 seconds, the actual download time for all images is ~1 second as shown by the WebPagetest waterfall chart.
The results are similar for IE10 and IE11. IE10 starts with six parallel TCP connections but then ramps up to eight connections. IE11 also starts with six parallel TCP connections but then ramps up to twelve. Both IE10 and IE11 exhibit the same problem – even though the load time for every image is ~1 second, “duration” shows values ranging from 1-3 seconds.
Clearly, “duration” is not an accurate way to measure resource load times because it may include blocking time. (It also includes redirect time, but that occurs much less frequently.) Unfortunately, “duration” is the only metric available for cross-origin resources. Therefore, I’ve submitted a proposal to the W3C Web Performance mailing list to add “networkDuration” to Resource Timing. This would be available for both same-origin and cross-origin resources. (I’m flexible about the name; other candidates include “networkTime”, “loadTime”, etc.)
The calculation for “networkDuration” is as follows. (Assume ”r” is a PerformanceResourceTiming object.)
dns = r.domainLookupEnd - r.domainLookupStart;
tcp = r.connectEnd - r.connectStart; // includes ssl negotiation
waiting = r.responseStart - r.requestStart;
content = r.responseEnd - r.responseStart;
networkDuration = dns + tcp + waiting + content;
Developers working with same-origin resources can do the same calculations as shown above to derive “networkDuration”. However, providing the result as a new attribute simplifies the process. It also avoids possible errors as it’s likely that companies and teams will compare these values, so it’s important to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. But the primary need for “networkDuration” is for cross-origin resources. Right now, “duration” is the only metric available for cross-origin resources. I’ve found several teams that were tracking “duration” assuming it meant download time. They were surprised when I explained that it also including blocking time, and agreed it was not the metric they wanted; instead they wanted the equivalent of “networkDuration”.
The problem that “networkDuration” solves is finding the load time for more typical resources that are loaded during page creation and might therefore incur blocking time.
It’s not possible today to use Resource Timing to measure load time for cross-origin resources. Companies that want to measure load time and blocking time can use “duration”, but all the companies I’ve spoken with want to measure the actual load time (without blocking time). To provide better performance metrics, I encourage the addition of “networkDuration” to the Resource Timing specification. If you agree, please voice your support in a reply to my “networkDuration” proposal on the W3C Web Performance mailing list.
With the increase in 3rd party content on websites, I’ve evangelized heavily about how Frontend SPOF blocks the page from rendering. This is timely given the recent Doubleclick outage. Although I’ve been warning about Frontend SPOF for years, I’ve never measured how long a hung response blocks rendering. I used to think this depended on the browser, […]
or “Why you should use document.readyState” I asked several web devs what happens if an onload handler adds another onload handler. Does the second onload handler execute? The onload event has already fired, so it might be too late for the second onload to get triggered. On the other hand, the onload phase isn’t over […]