Hey folks,
I’m working on improving our company’s internal screenshot API. We’re thinking about using headless browsers to render and snapshot components. But we’re not sure how well they perform or how reliable they are at scale.
Here’s what we need to know:
-
Can we speed up the API? Our Java Playwright test takes about 300ms, but we want to cut that in half.
-
How stable are headless browsers? They’re basically full browsers with extra steps, so there’s a lot that could go wrong.
-
Are some Chrome headless browsers way faster than others?
We don’t have much experience with this stuff, so any insights would be great. Thanks!
I’ve worked extensively with headless browsers for screenshot APIs, and there are definitely ways to optimize performance. One approach that’s yielded good results for us is using a browser pool to keep instances warm and ready. This can significantly reduce startup time.
As for reliability, it’s true that headless browsers can be finicky. We’ve found that proper error handling and automatic retries are crucial for maintaining stability at scale.
Regarding speed differences between Chrome-based options, in my experience, the core rendering engine is similar across implementations. The real performance gains come from how you manage and utilize the browser instances.
Have you considered parallelizing your screenshot tasks? That could potentially help you hit your 150ms target, especially if you’re dealing with multiple components.
I’ve been in the trenches with headless browsers for screenshot APIs, and let me tell you, it’s a wild ride. Performance-wise, we managed to squeeze out some serious speed by implementing a pre-warming strategy. Basically, we’d keep a pool of browser instances ready to go, which slashed our render times significantly.
Reliability was our biggest headache initially. These things would keel over if you looked at them funny. We ended up building a robust error handling system with automatic retries, and that made a world of difference. It’s not bullet-proof, but it’s pretty darn close.
As for Chrome variants, we didn’t see huge differences in raw speed. The real game-changer was how we managed resources and load balancing. We implemented a queue system that distributed tasks evenly across our browser pool, which helped maintain consistent performance even under heavy load.
One unconventional trick we stumbled upon: using ramdisks for temporary file storage. It gave us a noticeable speed boost for I/O operations. Might be worth exploring if you’re really chasing those milliseconds.
yo, headless browsers can be tricky. i’ve used puppeteer and it’s pretty fast, but not sure if it’ll hit ur 150ms target. stability can be hit or miss - sometimes they crash randomly. have u considered using a dedicated screenshot service instead? might be more reliable for high-volume stuff.