[xwiki-devs] Investigation: Page Load Time

Andreas Hahn ahahn at gmx.net
Sun Mar 6 22:46:13 UTC 2011


Sergiu,

I remember in one of my recent spring/hibernate projects we 
multithreaded the execution
with a Taskexecutor. As a result total execution time was a little bit 
more than the longest thread.
Don't know if this is an option here as the gain depends on various factors.

Andreas

Am 06.03.2011 04:18, schrieb Sergiu Dumitriu:
> 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
>




More information about the devs mailing list