Why use deflate instead of gzip for text files served by Apache?
The simple answer is don't.
RFC 2616 defines deflate as:
deflate The "zlib" format defined in RFC 1950 in combination with the "deflate" compression mechanism described in RFC 1951
The zlib format is defined in RFC 1950 as :
0 1
+---+---+
|CMF|FLG| (more-->)
+---+---+
0 1 2 3
+---+---+---+---+
| DICTID | (more-->)
+---+---+---+---+
+=====================+---+---+---+---+
|...compressed data...| ADLER32 |
+=====================+---+---+---+---+
So, a few headers and an ADLER32 checksum
RFC 2616 defines gzip as:
gzip An encoding format produced by the file compression program
"gzip" (GNU zip) as described in RFC 1952 [25]. This format is a
Lempel-Ziv coding (LZ77) with a 32 bit CRC.
RFC 1952 defines the compressed data as:
The format presently uses the DEFLATE method of compression but can be easily extended to use other compression methods.
CRC-32 is slower than ADLER32
Compared to a cyclic redundancy check of the same length, it trades reliability for speed (preferring the latter).
So ... we have 2 compression mechanisms that use the same algorithm for compression, but a different algorithm for headers and checksum.
Now, the underlying TCP packets are already pretty reliable, so the issue here is not Adler 32 vs CRC-32 that GZIP uses.
Turns out many browsers over the years implemented an incorrect deflate algorithm. Instead of expecting the zlib header in RFC 1950 they simply expected the compressed payload. Similarly various web servers made the same mistake.
So, over the years browsers started implementing a fuzzy logic deflate implementation, they try for zlib header and adler checksum, if that fails they try for payload.
The result of having complex logic like that is that it is often broken. Verve Studio have a user contributed test section that show how bad the situation is.
For example: deflate works in Safari 4.0 but is broken in Safari 5.1, it also always has issues on IE.
So, best thing to do is avoid deflate altogether, the minor speed boost (due to adler 32) is not worth the risk of broken payloads.
Configuration
You can enable GZIP compression entirely in your Web.config
file. This is particularly useful if you're on shared hosting and can't configure IIS directly, or you want your config to carry between all environments you target.
<system.webServer>
<httpCompression directory="%SystemDrive%\inetpub\temp\IIS Temporary Compressed Files">
<scheme name="gzip" dll="%Windir%\system32\inetsrv\gzip.dll"/>
<dynamicTypes>
<add mimeType="text/*" enabled="true"/>
<add mimeType="message/*" enabled="true"/>
<add mimeType="application/javascript" enabled="true"/>
<add mimeType="*/*" enabled="false"/>
</dynamicTypes>
<staticTypes>
<add mimeType="text/*" enabled="true"/>
<add mimeType="message/*" enabled="true"/>
<add mimeType="application/javascript" enabled="true"/>
<add mimeType="*/*" enabled="false"/>
</staticTypes>
</httpCompression>
<urlCompression doStaticCompression="true" doDynamicCompression="true"/>
</system.webServer>
Testing
To test whether compression is working or not, use the developer tools in Chrome or Firebug for Firefox and ensure the HTTP response header is set:
Content-Encoding: gzip
Note that this header won't be present if the response code is 304 (Not Modified). If that's the case, do a full refresh (hold shift or control while you press the refresh button) and check again.
Best Answer
Very simple to test. I took your js, put them in different files and ran gzip -9 on them. Here's the result. This was done on a WinXP machine running Cygwin and gzip 1.3.12.
Here's a further test using a real-world JS example. The source file is "common.js" The original file size is 73134 bytes. Minified, it came to 26232 bytes.
Original file:
Minified file:
Original file gzipped with -9 option (same version as above):
Minified file gzipped with -9 option (same version as above):
As you can see, there is a definite difference between the various methods. The best bet is to both minify as well as gzip them.