The point of concatenation is to improve performance by having just one file to download, but that means that every time you change a bit of your own javascript, the whole package is recompiled and fingerprinted - including large libraries like jQuery that haven't changed, and would have been cached if they were downloadable separately, but now jQuery is going to be redownloaded each time as part of your unified application.js.
What am I missing here? Wouldn't the best approach be to create two manifests - one for your own files (which are small and change frequently), and one for libraries (which are large and change infrequently)?
I will give it a try, with some speculation inside it ...
First, JQuery is provided by Rails itself, and depending on your layout, it will come from a CDN. So lets look at the libraries that may change over time. What are the scenarios here?
A user is visiting the web site for the first time. His browser (depending on the type) has to load all Javascript files before he can show something that comes below that (therefore, move it to the end). Depending on the browser, it may load 2, 4, 6 or 8 resources at one time, if your site consists of dozens or even hundreds of them, this will slow the presentation then.
A user is visiting the web site (this page) the second time. Normally on the same day, hour or even minute. The whole thing will be cached, there is only one request, that the cached thing can be used, pretty fast then. If all resources (hundreds) would be loaded one after another, there will be hundreds of requests if the cache is valid.
A user is visiting the web site the second time, and there was some time in between (lets say 15 days). Only 1 resource was changed, all other could be cached and reused. How probable is that?
A user (the developer) is visiting his work during development. No asset pipeline is used, no caching, because every change should be noticed immediately.
So I think, from a web site view, only the scenario 3 may be (a little bit) slower, and it is the most improbable one. Normally, the overhead of many, many requests is much more relevant than the size of the requests.
If you have the time, just try with a tool that displays it the loading time of all resources. There may be edge cases that one resource will change often, and should therefore not included in the asset pipeline, but normally, every change includes numerous resources, and caching them as one bit blob helps to avoid a lot of requests.
Here are some references to literature that discusses this:
Steve Souders: High performance web sites, short and a good summary
Steve Souders: High performance web sites the same in a book
Steve Souders: Even faster web sites more advanced, same topic
Cary Millsap: Thinking clearly about performance (first part) more on the server side, but excellent and especially the start very clear.
Related
I use rails to present automated hardware testing results; our tests are run mainly via TCL. Recently, we have implemented a "log4TCL" which is basically a translated version of log4J. The log files have upwards of 40000 lines, each of which is written to the database as a logline record, and load time for the view is too long to be considered usable. I have tried to use ajax requests to speed things up, but the initial query/page load accounts for ~75% of the full page load.
My solution is page caching. I cannot use the rails included page caching because each log report is a different instance of "log_viewer". The report is generated using a test_run_id parameter. Rails-included page caching only caches one instance of "log_viewer.html". What I need is "log_viewer_#{test_run_id}.html". I have implemented a way of doing this. The reports age out after one week and are purged from the test_runs/log_viewer_cache directory to save disk space. If an older report is needed, loading the page re-generates the report with a fresh age-out timer.
I have come to the conclusion that this is the way to go. My concern is that I have not found any other implementations such as this anywhere which leads me to believe that I have missed an inherent flaw in my design. Any input would be much appreciated.
EDIT: For clarification, the "Dynamic" content of this report is what takes too long to load. I need to cache multiple instances of what action/fragment caching is not concerned with.
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
Caching is something that I kind of ignored for a long time, as projects that I worked on were on local intranets with very little activity. I'm working on a much larger Rails 3 personal project now, and I'm trying to work out what and when I should cache things.
How do people generally determine this?
If I know a site is going to be relatively low-activity, should I just cache every single page?
If I have a page that calls several partials, is it better to do fragment caching in those partials, or page caching on those partials?
The Ruby on Rails guides did a fine job of explaining how caching in Rails 3 works, but I'm having trouble understanding the decision-making process associated with it.
Don't ever cache for the sake of it, cache because there's a need (with the exception of something like the homepage, which you know is going to be super popular.) Launch the site, and either parse your logs or use something like NewRelic to see what's slow. From there, you can work out what's worth caching.
Generally though, if something takes 500ms to complete, you should cache, and if it's over 1 second, you're probably doing too much in the request, and you should farm whatever you're doing to a background process…for example, fetching a Twitter feed, or manipulating images.
EDIT: See apneadiving's answer too, he links to some great screencasts (albeit based on Rails 2, but the theory is the same.)
You'll want to think about caching several kinds of things:
Requests that are hit a lot, and seldom change
Requests that are "expensive" to draw, lots of database calls, etc. Also hopefully these seldom change.
The other side of caching that shouldn't go without mention, is expiration. Its also often the harder part. You have to know when a cache is no longer good, and clear it out so fresh content will be generated. Sweepers, or Observers, depending on how you implement your cache can help you with this. You could also do it just based on a time value, allow caches to have a max-age and clear them after that no matter what.
As for fragment vs full page caching, think of it in terms of how often those parts are updated. If 3 partials of a page are never updated, and one is, maybe you want to cache those 3, and allow that 1 to be fetched live for so you can have up to the second accuracy. Or if the different partials of a page should have different caching rules: maybe a "timeline" section is cached, but has a cache-age of 1 minute. While the "friends" partial is cached for 12 hours.
Hope this helps!
If the site is relatively low activity you shouldn't cache any page. You cache because of performance problems, and performance problems come about because you have too much data to query, too many users, or worse, both of those situations at the same time.
Before you even think about caching, the first thing you do is look through your application for the requests that are taking up the most time. Not the slowest requests, but the requests your application spends the most aggregate time performing. That is if you have a request A that runs 10 times at 1500ms and request B that runs 5000 times at 250ms you work on optimizing B first.
It's actually pretty easy to grep through your production.log and extract rendering times and URLs to combine them into a simple report. You can even do that in real-time if you want.
Once you've identified a problematic request, you go about picking apart what it's doing to service the request. The first thing is to look for any queries that can be combined by using eager loading or by looking ahead a bit more to anticipate what you'll need. The next thing is to ensure you're not loading data that isn't used.
So many times you'll see code to list users and it's loading 50KB per person of biographical data, their Facebook and Twitter handles, literally everything about them, and all you use is their name.
Fetch as little as you need, and fetch it in the most efficient way you can. Use connection.select_rows when you don't need models.
The next step is to look at what kind of queries you're running, and how they're under-performing. Ensure your indexes are all set properly and are being used. Check that you're not doing complicated JOIN operations that could be resolved by a bit of tactical de-normalization.
Have a look at what data you are storing in your application, and try and find things that can be removed from your production database and warehoused somewhere else. Cycle your data out regularly when it's no longer relevant, preserve it in a separate database if you need to.
Then go over and have a look at how your database server is tuned. Does it have sufficiently large buffers? Is it on hardware that could be upgraded with more memory at a nominal cost? Too many people are running a completely un-tuned database server and with a few simple settings they can get ten-fold performance increases.
If, and only if, you still have a performance problem at this point then you might want to consider caching.
You know why you don't cache first? It's because once you cache something, that cached data is immediately stale. If parts of your application use this data under the assumption it's always up to date, you will have problems. If you don't expire this cache when the data does change, you will have problems. If you cache the data and never use it again, you're just clogging up your cache and you will have problems. Basically you'll have lots of problems when you use caching, so it's often a last resort.
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.