[xwiki-devs] Investigation: Page Load Time

Sergiu Dumitriu sergiu at xwiki.com
Sun Mar 6 03:18:35 UTC 2011


On 03/06/2011 12:37 AM, Ludovic Dubost wrote:
>
> Interesting I did some simple instrumentation of #template and for the
> page Sandbox.WebHome we get:
>
> (results here
> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/PageLoadTimeReport30SnapShot1)
>
> Time frequentlyUsedDocs.vm: 3
> Time deprecatedVars.vm: 1
> Time xwikivars.vm: 11
> Time layoutExtraVars.vm: 1
> Time layoutvars.vm: 7
> Time colorThemeInit.vm: 2
> Time stylesheets.vm: 5
> Time analytics.vm: 0
> Time javascript.vm: 9
> Time htmlheader.vm: 36
> Time menuview.vm: 19
> Time global.vm: 3
> Time header.vm: 4
> Time startpage.vm: 78
> Time contentmenu.vm: 6
> Time frequentlyUsedDocs.vm: 1
> Time deprecatedVars.vm: 1
> Time xwikivars.vm: 7
> Time hierarchy.vm: 25
> Time titlevars.vm: 2
> Time shortcuts.vm: 2
> Time contentview.vm: 37
> Time frequentlyUsedDocs.vm: 1
> Time deprecatedVars.vm: 1
> Time xwikivars.vm: 7
> Time documentTags.vm: 12
> Time frequentlyUsedDocs.vm: 1
> Time deprecatedVars.vm: 1
> Time xwikivars.vm: 9
> Time commentsinline.vm: 12
> Time docextra.vm: 15
> Time leftpanels.vm: 1
> Time rightpanels.vm: 50
> Time footer.vm: 2
> Time htmlfooter.vm: 0
> Time endpage.vm: 54
> Time view.vm: 216
>
> in Firebug the page loads in 10ms more than view.vm
> As we can see:
>
> - the panels (quick links and recent changes) cost 50ms -> 25%
> - startpage cost 78ms -> 30%
> - breadcrumb cost 25ms -> 12%
> - some templates are repeated (on repeat is dur to AJAX, the other not)
> - we have 37 templates called
>
> If we implement caching in panels, breadcrumb and part of the start page
> we could win 33% of the general time of the skin.
> If we win 1ms per template run, we can win 15% of the general time of
> the skin.
>
> The results on the home page (2 to 3 seconds), show that we ought to
> look at dynamic code of course as the main slow-down. A panel with a
> list of changes or of categories is way more costly than the whole skin.
> The dashboard page is even more costly.
> A long Syntax 2.0 page is also quite costly.
>
> So implementing caches on all this is a good way to keep performance good.

I think this is not the right approach. Caching always introduces 
surprises. Image we cache the "recently viewed" panel. The user views 
some documents, but that panel doesn't show them, but insists on 
displaying things from 5 minutes ago. Buggy feature...

Imagine we cache the homepage, and I go and create a new "product", and 
go to the homepage and don't see it there. What do I do? Panic? Say it's 
a bug and call the IT guy only to look like a fool later when I try to 
show it? Report a bug to those developers only to have it closed as 
"won't fix, duplicate of the other 30 issues reported this month"?

Personally, I think that most of the costs come from three main points:
- checkAccess is too slow
- getXWikiPreference is too slow
- there's no way to just get some document metadata like the title 
without loading the full document from the database

We should focus on these three for a start.

But I might be wrong as well; the best way to work on performance is to 
start a profiler, find the hot spots, and tinker them until they stop 
being a problem.

Caches work well for mostly static pages, not for highly dynamic 
scripts, and these scripts are the ones that cost the most. Caching 
plain wiki documents will save too little.

> Ludovic
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 05/03/11 23:56, Ludovic Dubost a écrit :
>>
>> Good points Paul,
>>
>> While I was working on a first report (
>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/PageLoadTimeReport30SnapShot1
>> ), I also realized that I did not mention velocity enough here.
>> I do have caches in mind to improve performance (we have the cache
>> macro in the 3.0 trunk and in the 2.7 branch), but it's true I did not
>> mention it.
>>
>> One reason is that a lot of the velocity time is not in the page
>> itself but in the main templates, and it does not seem so easy to
>> cache that part, since almost all templates have context specific
>> results (based on the user).
>> However maybe we ought to look into that more and maybe reorganize the
>> templates between those that are always giving a stable results and
>> those that don't. I was thinking that some templates could report that
>> they can be cached. It's probably true for pages too which could be
>> reported by their editors as fully cachable.
>>
>> In any case, what's sure is that we do need a good analysis of the
>> time spent in velocity and in the templates and the load it generates
>> on the server. In the end we do suffer from rerunning the same
>> velocity over and over again, even though it will always give the same
>> result.
>>
>> It's true also that it would make sense to provide tools to measure
>> the performance of the application that is built with XWiki, not only
>> the base product.
>>
>> I'll wait for more feedback and we'll improve the plan.
>>
>> Ludovic
>>
>>
>> Le 05/03/11 22:02, Paul Libbrecht a écrit :
>>> Ludovic,
>>>
>>> First, one of the central performance gainers on the web is the usage
>>> of Caches.
>>> I see nothing of that mentioned there and it should definitely be
>>> mentioned I feel.
>>>
>>> Providing a system where velocity macros and pages can return that
>>> they have not been modified since the given time (that the browser
>>> indicates) would make probably more than 50% of the xwiki-loaded
>>> pages be instantaneously displayed.
>>>
>>> This sure should be measured. It'd be a comparison between what would
>>> happen if such a clean if-modified-since treatment would exist and
>>> what is actually done.
>>>
>>> Secondly, another area where I think page-delivery time is too often
>>> eaten in xwiki is at the lack of streaming. Thus far I can only
>>> stream by outputting more velocity. I can't stream from a groovy page
>>> that is called and, I fear, quite often velocity still calls toString
>>> methods instead of streaming, say, a property value.
>>>
>>> Again, it would be interesting to analyze this statistically. My
>>> claim here, would be that this would lower the memory allocation
>>> considerably hence the time taken to process.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, removing unused JS and CSS is, to me, only one step and it
>>> is highly desirable to have (integrated) tools that measure the
>>> overlap of various CSS sources. The complexity of the CSS is one of
>>> the places where Curriki is probably at its biggest difficulty.
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, the measures you indicate in this page (and also those that
>>> I recommend) seem to be strongly application specific. It would be
>>> rather nice to have re-runnable tests so that one can draw possibly
>>> different test conclusions as part of an admin toolkit.
>>> As a result, the objective of dividing by 2 seems quite artificial to
>>> me, though certainly enjoyable; it should be there for each
>>> application to apply.
>>>
>>> paul
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 5 mars 2011 à 10:14, Ludovic Dubost a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> He is a first draft of the investigation for "page load time" with a
>>>> proposed action plan:
>>>>
>>>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/PageLoadTime
>>>>
>>>> My next step will be to run a "manual" test and take some measures
>>>> and propose "obvious" improvements we could make if there are any.
>>>>
>>>> Comments welcome. Questions are:
>>>>
>>>> - are the goals ok
>>>> - are the measures the right ones
>>>> - can we run automated measures
>>>> - what is missing in this document
>>>>
>>>> Ludovic


-- 
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/



More information about the devs mailing list