New cache problems (According to GTMetrix)

  • Resolved atutrabajocoach

    (@atutrabajocoach)


    1 year, 1 month ago

    Dear: Good afternoon.
    For a while now (not long), when I analyze my site with GTMetrix, an "error" appears that DIDN'T appear before and says the following:
    …"Allow reverse/forward cache restore…
    Many navigations are done by returning to a previous page or moving forward again. The back/forward cache (bfcache) can speed up these return navigations…
    Pages whose primary resource has cache control: no-store cannot enter the forward/backward cache"…

I honestly DON'T understand (much) what this means! ˉ(°_o)/ˉ
    What I know is that before I did NOT have it as an "error" and for some time I HAVE.

Having said that…
    Currently, I can PROUDLY say that after lots of testing, in W3TC I have the following configuration;
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hGicGKf3qTMX6ITvu07DS8yffmDSwOJV/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=102851233358919075037&rtpof=true&sd=true

And I say this (the pride thing) because, it took me a looong time to get the BEST POSSIBLE cache configuration (For FREE, obviously:).

Even, as I mentioned at the beginning, with THIS configuration installed, until recently, said "error" did NOT appear.
    Which means GTMetrix apparently "invented" this recently.
    Anyway (≧︿≦)

Conclusion:
    1) Yes, with THIS configuration installed, until NOW, I HAD NO Problem () () Except those previously raised in, for example in this ticket;
    https://www.ads-software.com/support/topic/problem-improvement-proposal/
    Or, this other one;
    https://www.ads-software.com/support/topic/technical-consultation/

2) Yes according to this Google article;
    https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/2657289?hl=es-GT&ref_topic=2936229&visit_id=637784091872864559-2796401843&rd=1#zippy=%2Cmemoria-cach%C3%A9-atr%C3%A1sadelante-de -header-without-store%C3%A9n
    This Google Chrome Security Policy (Cache back/forward header without store) what it does is…
    …"Specifies whether users can store pages with the Cache-Control: no-store (CCNS) header in the back/forward cache (or bfcache)."…

But at the same time (in Same Article/Content that is; https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/2657289?hl=es-GT&ref_topic=2936229&visit_id=637784091872864559-2796401843&rd=1#zippy=%2Cmemoria -cache%C3%A9-back%C3%A1sinfront-of-header-without-store%C3%A9n%2Ccache%C3%A9-back%C3%A1sforward) be warned that…
    …"This feature may cause problems on some websites that do not expect this caching. Specifically, some websites rely on the “download” event to be sent when the browser exits the page. If the page uses the Cache back/forward function, the “unload” event will not be sent…

3) If the Cost/Benefit in the measurement tool for IM, most importantly (Pagespeed) is (almost) NULL.

So I ask you…
    a) Is it worth making any changes to MY current W3TC configuration?
    And (if so)…
    b) What change (or changes) would I have to make?
    Last (but not least)…
    c) What would be the Cost/Benefit of making these changes?

I await your comments.

From already thank you very much.

Greetings.

    The page I need help with: [log in to see the link]

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Plugin Contributor Marko Vasiljevic

    (@vmarko)

    Hello @

    Thank you for reaching out and I am happy to help!
    The back/forward cache (bfcache) stores a snapshot of the page in memory for when the page is restored from the navigation history. This significantly speeds up return navigations to the page, however some browser APIs (e.g. unload listeners) can cause the bfcache to fail and the page will be loaded normally.

    Pages whose main resource has cache-control:no-store cannot enter back/forward cache. And this is the case on yoru website.

    Cache-Control: max-age=0, private, no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate

    So to remedy this, you should enable the Cache-control header (Either in W3 Total Cache for HTML&XML) or wherever you have set the Browser cache rules manually.
    Costs and benefits: The cached page will stay in the browser Cache and it will be faster when navigating.
    There are no negative aspects when it comes to Cache-control in your case.

    I hope this explains this.

    Let me know if this helps and if you have any other questions.

    Thanks!

    Thread Starter atutrabajocoach

    (@atutrabajocoach)

    Hello. I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you that…You are a genius! (^-^)/
    I just implemented what you suggest in W3TC and it looked like this…
    In my W3TC Dashboard:
    HTML & XML
    Header expiration: 1 seconds
    Cache control policy
    cache with max time and validation (“max-age=EXPIRES_SECONDS, public, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate”)

    In my .htaccess
    FileETag MTime Size Header set Pragma “public” Header append Cache-Control “public, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate” Header set X-Powered-By “W3 Total Cache/2.5.0”

    And frankly (as you said) the relative cost was VERY LOW () () The counters on my home page count once and then set (until the visitor returns – after a second of being on my site – to visit it).

    And (as you also mentioned) the “error” that marked GTMetrix DISAPPEARED

    Conclusion:
    The benefit was greater than the cost and, for that, I thank you.

    Therefore, if you agree, I will close this ticket.

    For now that’s all.

    Thanks, again.

    Greetings.

    P.s: Please, when you can, finish “solving” what I mentioned in those two previously mentioned tickets.

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • The topic ‘New cache problems (According to GTMetrix)’ is closed to new replies.