I seem to get degraded performance using parallel

Couple of guesses as to why...
Only 1 css/js file due to the use of Optimize css/js files. This is a good thing, just means parallel doesn't gain you much here, and might hurt (probably your case). But if using private downloads then parallel will have a dramatic effect. Also if not using firefox 3 or IE 8 then it should be faster; these latest browsers don't follow the html 1.1 specs, and download more then 2 files at a time.

Right now parallel can only use 1 domain for images. If/When this changes that should give the results one would expect. This would be dependent on the hook_aler_html module I've been thinking of, because then it would make manipulation of the DOM cleaner & more robust. Would also rely on a db table to keep track of what images get mapped to what domain, in order to take advantage of client side caching. If you have a lot of css images then parallel will help, since they will get downloaded via the css domain.

In short this is a new module, and will take some TLC to get it in tip-top shape. There's a reason it's not 1.0 ;)

This looks a bit off-putting to me; I also use Boost and latest browsers. Two questions:

1) I can understand that if there are few CSS and image elements, Parallel does not speed up things. But in what way could it be the cause of an increased load time of 1-2 seconds?

2) If the latest browsers don't follow HTML 1.1 specifications and can download more than 2 files simultaneously, then what speed improvements can Parallel as it is possibly bring in these browsers?

Thanks for any clarifications.

Slow DNS and servers that get bogged down with more then active 10 connections to it. Servers that utilize "keep alive" *might* get worse performance since this is opening up a new connection instead of using the old one. I should say that you need to test this, it's not a magic pill like boost is; it really depends on your hosting situation.

Created a new category and updated the project page.

Thanks for the diligent - as always - response, mikeytown2.

I appreciate the new category, the explanation on the front page of this module, and the two quality resources from Google and Yahoo.

I still don't understand one aspect: Does not everything hinge around the problematic adherence to HTTP 1.1?
I acknowledge that for HTTP 1.1 specification (provided the server can provide a large number of active connections) Parallel has a lot of sense - it loads more than 2 resources at once. But what happens in case of the newer browsers -- if they don't adhere to HTTP 1.1, I imagine they just (try to) grab all resources at once, which is the goal (again, provided the server can provide the sufficient number of active connections). So - in these new browsers - is there an advantage for using parallelized downloads?

When using modern browsers, the advantage is not as significant. IE8 and FF3.5 are the only 2 that don't follow specs if I remember correctly; so looking at user stats is an important part. If you have non tech savvy people going to your site, parallel module will give more benefit to more people.

closing since this issue isn't getting any action.