I'm using Glimpse to debug some perfomance problems in my website, and it seems that the server/framework sits iddle for too long between method calls.
This picture shows 320 ms of server time;
This second picture reveals that 125.29 ms are used by ViewResult.ExecuteResult (I understand that as "rendering", which seems pretty slow to me, considering that my views are pre-compiled - more on that below);
But the really odd thing here is that more than 100 ms are pretty much wasted with iddle time, as you can verify in this picture.
Those little blocks representing server work sometimes account for 0 ms! But then there's a lapse of about 15 ms before the next block.
Is it really iddle time? Do you have any tips for where to look next, or how to optimize this?
Disclaimer: I've been looking into this for a week or so, and I have already found and applied those general performance recommendations, like:
Only one View Engine is active (RazorViewEngine);
Run in Release mode;
Specify full view paths, like "~/Views/Folder/ActionName.cshtml".
Besides that, Donut Caching is active, views are pre-compiled with Razor Generator, and I'm using Glimpse for diagnostics. Anyways, I've tried disabling these things to ensure that they were not the offenders, and I verified that they're actually improving the times.
Thanks in advance.
Related
I have a large webb app of which I have recently been working hard to reduce load times. I have two controllers Generator (some 20.000 items) and Product (some 1.500 items) that have been slow for a while but I have worked with indexes and smart queries. On my dev app the app response time is about 500 ms.
From time to time I still get RequestTimeOut on the app and I need help trouble shooting this error. I understand what it means (a request has taken too much time) and I have installed the 'rack-timeout' gem and set it to 15 seconds (which works fine).
I have gone through the entire app (and especially the two slowest: Generator & Product) in search for time to save. I have had some issues with caching that I am currently trying to fix (caching would help quite a bit).
It seems that these timeouts happens mostly when bots (Yandex.ru especially) spiders through my site and especially goes through one generator after another. They may not be very slow any more but loading so many after another causes a lot of requests.
Now I am out of ideas and need some help in order to know what and how to continue my trouble shooting:
Is there anything else outside of response time that cause this
error? E.g. memory leakage or something? Or is it just a matter of
lots of requests on slow controllers?
I haven't been able to test it on my development platform. Is
there a way to benchmark and see how the app would handle
requests like from the bots? I seem to remember there was an
"Apache-thing" one could use to simulate traffic like this.
Any other ways of looking at the problem or trouble shoot this
issue from a high level point of view? Any ideas and
thoughts are welcome!
I'm working on a site with modx revo. I'm really annoyed by the slow loading op pages. There's a 2sec wait for a page load om my localhost ánd I have a SSD. I've been looking around to find out how to make pageload faster.
I do have alot of getResources-/Gallery (9 total) calls and two Wayfinder calls. I've read it had to to with those, so I got rid of all the getResources and changed them to customs snippets that do only what I need them to do, build a 3-4 item menu. It's still slow, only few hunderd ms slower.
The Galleries (5) are only 3-4 images. I also use babel that checks every resource id for it's translation counterpart.
I'm wondering if it has anything to do with my wampserver (v 2.2) settings...
Now that I've summed it all up, I does look like a heavy page. Will I get long pageloads with any CMS this way?
Any help/hint/tips are apreciated!
You might want to "cache" all snippet tags without using the exclamation mark [[! ... ]].
Here is a blog about caching guidelines: http://www.markhamstra.com/modx-blog/2011/10/caching-guidelines-for-modx-revolution/
Here is a current discussion about speed performance: http://forums.modx.com/thread?thread=74902#dis-post-415390
This has happened to me on more than one occasion and has led to many lost hours chasing a ghost. As typical, when I am debugging some really difficult timing-related code I start adding tons of OutputDebugString() calls, so I can get a good picture of the sequence of related operations. The problem is, the Delphi 6 IDE seems to be able to only handle that situation for so long. I'll use a concrete example I just went through to avoid generalities (as much as possible).
I spent several days debugging my inter-thread semaphore locking code along with my DirectShow timestamp calculation code that was causing some deeply frustrating problems. After having eliminated every bug I could think of, I still was having a problem with Skype, which my application sends audio to.
After about 10 seconds the delay between my talking and hearing my voice come out of Skype on the second PC that I was using for testing, the far end of the call, started to grow. At around 20 - 30 seconds the delay started to grow exponentially and at that point triggered code I have that checks to see if a critical section was being held too long.
Fortunately it wasn't too late at night and having been through this before, I decided to stop relentlessly tracing and turned off the majority of the OutputDebugString(). Thankfully I had most of them wrapped in a conditional compiler define so it was easy to do. The instant I did this the problems went away, and it turned out my code was working fine.
So it looks like the Delphi 6 IDE starts to really bog down when the amount of OutputDebugstring() traffic is above some threshold. Perhaps it's just the task of adding strings to the Event Log debugger pane, which holds all the OutputDebugString() reports. I don't know, but I have seen similar problems in my applications when a TMemo or similar control starts to contain too many strings.
What have those of you out there done to prevent this? Is there a way of clearing the Event Log via some method call or at least a way of limiting its size? Also, what techniques do you use via conditional defines, IDE plug-ins, or whatever, to cope with this situation?
A similar problem happened to me before with Delphi 2007. Disable event viewing in the IDE and instead use DebugView from Sysinternals.
I hardly ever use OutputDebugString. I find it hard to analyze the output in the IDE and it takes extra effort to keep several sets of multiple runs.
I really prefer a good logging component suite (CodeSite, SmartInspect) and usually log to various files. Standard files for example are "General", "Debug" (standard debug info that I want to collect from a client installation as well), "Configuration", "Services", "Clients". These are all set up to "overflow" to a set of numbered files, which allows you to keep the logs of several runs by simply allowing more numbered files. Comparing log info from different runs becomes a whole lot easier that way.
In the situation you describe I would add debug statements that log to a separate logfile. For example "Trace". The code to make "Trace" available is between conditional defines. That makes turning it on pretty simple.
To avoid leaving in these extra debug statements, I tend to make the changes to turn on the "Trace" log without checking it out from source control. That way, the compiler of the build server will throw out "identifier not defined" errors on any statements unintentionally left in. If I want to keep these extra statements I either change them to go to the "Debug" log, or put them between conditional defines.
The first thing I would do is make certain that the problem is what you think it is. It has been a long time since I've used Delphi, so I'm not sure about the IDE limitations, but I'm a bit skeptical that the event log will start bogging down exponentially over time with the same number of debug strings being written in a period of 20-30 seconds. It seems more likely that the number of debug strings being written is increasing over time for some reason, which could indicate a bug in your application control flow that is just not as obvious with the logging disabled.
To be sure I would try writing a simple application that just runs in a loop writing out debug strings in chunks of 100 or so, and start recording the time it takes for each chunk, and see if the time starts to increase as significantly over a 20-30 second timespan.
If you do verify that this is the problem - or even if it's not - then I would recommend using some type of logging library instead. OutputDebugString really loses it's effectiveness when you use it for massive log dumps like that. Even if you do find a way to reset or limit the output window, you'd be losing all of that logging data.
IDE Fix Pack has an optimisation to improve performance of OutputDebugString
The IDE’s Debug Log View also got an optimization. The debugger now
updates the Log View only when the IDE is idle. This allows the IDE to
stay responsive when hundreds of OutputDebugString messages or other
debug messages are written to the Debug Log View.
Note that this only runs on Delphi 2007 and above.
I've been building an application in Ruby on Rails 3, and I'm starting to worry about performance optimization. Now I hope that my question is not too subjective for this site, but I'm interested in facts, not a discussion, so here goes:
While I'm trying to get my views to render faster, there is one thing I simply do not know: What should I aim for? Given a reasonably complex page, what load time is realistic? I simply don't have any reference.
What I'm typically seeing for my application is something like this:
Completed 200 OK in 397ms (Views: 341.1ms | ActiveRecord: 17.7ms)
This is on my production server, running Apache/Passenger.
I am the only one (!) making requests on that server, it's a root server (not virtual), running Ubuntu, AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+, 4 GB RAM
That is, for most of my more complicated actions (not unusually complicated, just assume it's a paginated listing of 20 objects with 5 computed properties each or something) the ActiveRecord times are almost always fine (<20-30ms), but the "views" number is usually >200 ms.
Now, to my question: When I started using RoR my expectation (maybe unrealistic) was that for most consumer-oriented applications with average complexity (let's say something like Facebook, Twitter, etc. WITHOUT the millions of users) I would get < 20 ms load times as long as I was the only one making requests, and that for a single server load times would only approach 100ms or more if there were lots of people making requests at the same time.
My expectation was also that database requests would be the major bottleneck, since all the rest is just relatively simple computations without any real complexity. I thought that it might take 10ms to get all the objects from the database, and then maybe another 5 ms to run the controller code, build the view, etc.
Since I've never been in charge of any production app, I don't know if this expectation was in any way realistic. So I would like somebody with experience point out to me what my realistic expectation should be.
(e.g. "pretty much everything but really nasty stuff should render in 50 ms tops as long as you are the only one making requests")
or ("actually 300 ms is not unusual for RoR applications, even if you're the only user")
or ("Are you kidding? I get < 10 ms with 150 concurrent requests on a smaller server than yours. There must be something very wrong with your app)
Again, I hope this is not too subjective, but I'm not really interested in an opinion of whether or not RoR is fast, I want facts from someone with more experience on what numbers are average and to be expected from production RoR applications. Otherwise I simply have no clue at what point I should stop optimizing and just accept that I'll never get 10 ms load times.
Gosh, I'm not sure I'm the one to answer this, but since I've been around these waters enough times, I may have an incomplete idea of things to look at.
First of all, the response times is pretty subjective. Meaning, it's good enough if it's good enough for you. From my experience, pages resembling your description seem to take about as much time as what you're describing. So, you're not orders of magnitude off in either direction.
If you want to optimize your view renders with your current architecture, your next step is here, I think. Greg Pollack does a great job breaking this stuff down for you and will make sure you're on track. You'll be sure to get your assets cached and your stack fine-tuned. That'll be your most practical general advice.
If you're willing to look at your deployment architecture, Ilya Grigorik raises some great questions in this article and then answers them with Goliath. If your bottlenecks are speeding up your server-client round trip, that's probably the approach to do.
I try to pay attention to anything Aaron Patterson says about performance, like in this talk. He's going to teach general optimization ideas, most of them for your server-side code. You may catch a few things that relate to your current problem.
I was pulled aside by a former co-worker at MWRC this year and told that I'm absolutely nuts if I'm not building with JRuby these days. It's a bit of a commitment, and I've resisted making major changes like that until I have truly painful response times, which I don't, and it doesn't sound like you're having either. However, JRuby's a very mainstream thing to do now, and you and I will likely embrace this for some projects at some point in the future.
So, bottom line, I think you're in the realm of a spry app as you are. I think I'd work down these resources in the order I presented them.
Not knowing what you're rendering, it's hard to comment on the performance, but I would venture to say that 200ms is very high. Don't forget that the debug information in your logs can be a little misleading: if you're querying your DB or some external resource from within a view, as opposed to preloading that data in your controller, then that time will be attributed to view rendering.
Common culprits: you load Model X in your model, but then access an association in your view which triggers a bunch of selects under the hood. The time to fetch Model x is low, but the associated records will show up as "view time".
In other words, dig into the logs and if its actually your view code, then bring up a profiler.
I'm getting view times < 20ms on a $20/month linode server. That's well-optimized code, for a request of medium complexity, running on JRuby. You haven't hit Rails' performance limits by any means. Time to use a profiler and see what's taking so long.
I don't think your 200 ms view time is abnormal, or even high in any way.
However, you have room for improvement. You say " (not unusually complicated, just assume it's a paginated listing of 20 objects with 5 computed properties each or something)"
To me, that's 100 operations that could be pre-calculated, and would speed up your view rendering time.
Finally -- Rendering time doesn't usually have a direct correlation to number of users. Under most deployments, as a request comes in, it is handled by a process and then responded to. Other requests wait until the first is completed before they are processed.
Use static content where possible. Outside of that, use caching where possible, at the highest possible level, preferably at the page level. When content can't be cached, try to get -something- static or cacheable back to the user quickly. You might, for instance, serve up a static page with the basic layout, and an animated busy-image where the content belongs, and then use JavaScript to load the dynamic content.
I'm working on web app (Rails 3 based). And I really don't like the time it takes to generate the page - depending on the displayed data it takes up to 2.5 and even 4 seconds.
So I just was wondering what is the average reasonable time for generating page in your apps. Saying you check the generation time, e.g. it's 750ms and think "Ok, that should be fine even without caching". Or when you see 1.5sec you think "Oh my God, the user won't wait so long and leave the site"
There's a huge amount of research data regarding the time from query to rendering and user's experience. I'd recommend reading this useit.com article. After all Google integrated page speed in its results for a reason ;)
The 3 response-time limits are the
same today as when I wrote about them
in 1993 (based on 40-year-old research
by human factors pioneers):
0.1 seconds gives the feeling of instantaneous response — that is, the
outcome feels like it was caused by
the user, not the computer. This level
of responsiveness is essential to
support the feeling of direct
manipulation (direct manipulation is
one of the key GUI techniques to
increase user engagement and control —
for more about it, see our Principles
of Interface Design seminar).
1 second keeps the user's flow of thought seamless. Users can sense a
delay, and thus know the computer is
generating the outcome, but they still
feel in control of the overall
experience and that they're moving
freely rather than waiting on the
computer. This degree of
responsiveness is needed for good
navigation.
10 seconds keeps the user's attention. From 1–10 seconds, users
definitely feel at the mercy of the
computer and wish it was faster, but
they can handle it. After 10 seconds,
they start thinking about other
things, making it harder to get their
brains back on track once the computer
finally does respond.
A 10-second delay will often make
users leave a site immediately. And
even if they stay, it's harder for
them to understand what's going on,
making it less likely that they'll
succeed in any difficult tasks.
As a rule of thumb, think that you always should aim for a balance of optimization time vs time gained. Don't spend days optimizing the hell out of one routine when your images aren't compressed correctly, or your scripts/css not combined. Yes, faster is better, but a 90% gain in generating the page by setting up a smart cache beats a 10% gain after one week tweaking the algorithm.
Also don't look too much into the first-render-time when the framework has to load everything, but use stress-testing, cached or not, to simulate various situations.
Now, some data; some of the latest sites i worked on used DotNetNuke, a huge open-source CMS, and Asp.Net MVC where you nearer to the metal. Average page time with average db queries was 600-700 milliseconds for DotNetNuke. For Asp.net MVC, it's 70-100 milliseconds... Users really like the second one :)
There's no 'right' answer to this - the faster the better. Personally I normally aim for < 200ms, although I know from experience that it can be quite difficult to achieve this in Rails on anything but simple apps. Try and figure out where your bottlenecks are and cache what you can.
Edit: There seems to be some confusion between page generation time and page render time. Obviously a quick page render is the goal, and on most sites doing things like reducing HTTP requests, gzipping CSS/JS are where you can get most of your quick wins. But if the page itself can take 4-5 seconds to generate, then you're probably right that your app is where you should start.
It depends on whether nothing is displayed for 2.5-4 seconds, or that the user already sees (a part of) the page from the start, and it finishes loading completely after 2.5-4 seconds. In that case the user doesn't experience a 2.5-4 second load. Take the http://www.nytimes.com/ website; I see most of it right away, but according to the Web Inspector it takes 1.94 seconds for it to be loaded completely.
And keep in mind that the speed will also depend on the browser, computer, internet connection. What's fast for you might be slower for others.
Measure your apdex score and see how it is performing. That will give you a rough indiciation. From there, you can decide how you want to increase performance.
It also depends on what your site is; an system application for a business or software as a service (SaaS)? If it's a system application, the users are forced to use it to performance can be negotiated. If it is a SaaS, then the higher your apdex score, the more chance you have of losing your user's interest.
There are a few gems out there that measure performance and report on what your apdex is.
Here's a little more info: http://apdex.org/blog/?p=630
My personal rule - no page should take more than 0.05 seconds, or you are in troubles.
As long as you write proper code, you don't need to spend much time on optimization to stay under 0.05.
If you stick to giant frameworks, then you are out of luck.