View in #wordpress on Slack
@peezy: Hi, everyone! Does anyone have any recommendations /suggestions for implementing WebP Images? Apparently it’s supported via the Global CDN, but I couldn’t find any other mention in the Docs.
Pantheon Docs: October 2017
@Joel_Yoder: I tried getting them working with WebP Express on our WordPress site, but never was able to find a working fix for the issues with having a read-only plugin directory. If there was a CDN level solution integrated with Pantheon, that would be awesome!
@peezy: Thanks for the update. After my message, I found yours from last month. According to https://pantheon.io/product/advanced-global-cdn#pricing-matrix-wrapper The Advanced Global CDN + WAF/IO option includes “Enhanced Image Optimization.” I reached out the sales team to see if that meant WebP. When they get back to me, I’ll update this thread.
Advanced Global CDN - WAF, Domain Masking & Reverse Proxy,
@Bill_Dodson: Good question- might be fodder for an SEO or performance experiment (3 sites with webP and 3 sites without… something like that)
@Doug: FWIW the platform supports WebP, but you’ll have to generate the images from within your application. The AGCDN Image Optimization product can also do WebP, but that’s not a requirement for them to work
The WebP Express plugin likely needs a symlink since the folder they describe using is outside our standard write access folders:
Pantheon Docs: Symlinks and Assumed Write Access
@peezy: Thanks, @Doug! We’re chatting with the client and someone from your team about the AGCDN this week.
I’ve had good results with Eww Image Optimizer on other platforms, so I reached out to them as well. According to their support folks, Ewww Image Optimizer works on Pantheon with their Easy IO option: https://ewww.io/easy/ subscription (starts at $5 per month).
WordPress.org: EWWW Image Optimizer
Easy Image Optimizer - EWWW Image Optimizer
@Frank: Of all the things to pay a subscription fee for, imagine optimization doesn’t even make my list.
But alas, I haven’t had much movement on this ground since I brought up this topic here ~14 days ago https://pantheon-community.slack.com/archives/CT8MC5Y0K/p1594143890190400
[July 7th, 2020 10:44 AM] iamfrankstallone: Anyone ever use one of these plugins to convert all your WordPress images to WebP? https://wordpress.org/plugins/search/convert+webp/
@Doug: hi Frank, if you have minimal images to process, those plugins should work fine on the platform. They may require some work as noted above with symlinks if they use non-standard file paths. That said, if you have a lot of user generated content, or high volume of uploads, you will see much better performance by offloading that. The typical way these plugins work is to work on the tail end of a request, so as not to impact user experience (through WP cron or other hooks). That can mean though that your app is tied up with an image optimization request as more traffic comes in, causing slower responses to the incoming traffic, especially if you end up with more of these long running requests. If the traffic is minimal (or you can arrange the processing into times when the traffic is low, you’ll be fine
@Joel_Yoder: @Doug We tried symlinks, and I even got help from @sparklingrobots_(admin) and @alexf during community hour and we couldn’t get it working. Even with a working symlink, the plugin still claimed the directory didn’t exist, so I suspect it’s using
is_dir() to check the directory. I’ll have to follow up with the plugin author about it.
Might not hurt to add a note about it in the plugin comparability docs.
@carolyn: yes, looking at the plugin’s code, it does seem to be using
Reported as docs issue 5890 .
GitHub: WordPress Plugins and Themes with Known Issues: WebP Express · Issue #5890 · pantheon-systems/documentation
@Frank: Hey all thanks for your input on this @Doug luckily my sites tend to have lower traffic, they are small business owners, and these sites are lightening fast. Presumably I could run a webp converter and the sites at the same time and see no diminishable performance hits during that time period. That being said, we’re talking about batch work up front for existing images, and smaller one time work with uploads later, it’s not like it’s doing the conversion on file request from the user. That would be terrible UX.
@peezy: I realize this is an old thread, but I did agree to post an update. The client ended up using Eww and apparently the
is_dir() issue was not a big deal because WebP images are getting served. The result was a 400% percent improvement in performance, according to Lighthouse.