Le 06/03/11 04:18, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
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"?
Of course caching needs to be use with intelligence and should be used
only on content that you can invalidate the cache for.
But the numbers shown higher up, show that a significant portion of the
load time is actually in certain scripts (panels or home page) that are
costly by nature and quite almost the same from one run to another.
It's not something that is problematic by essence but this is something
an administrator needs to be aware of.
It's known that an entry point should be fast. For instance Google does
not use a dynamic page for it's search box.
Having a cost of 2 seconds to display the boxes from our home page is a
killer.
Another thing that it shows is that indeed there is a lot of time in
many little things. 37 templates, thousands of calls to the prefs and to
the message API (you forgot that one).
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.
That's not always true. I've run profilers on XWiki and profilers are
good to look at contentions and specific code that is called a lot under
load.
It does not tell you if your code is necessary or not. A good
instrumentation of the "logic" of your page is interesting too.
In my view all performance information is interesting as it allows to
gain information about our application.
What is really important is to separate the use case. There is no point
in profiling the home page of XWiki since it's load time is probably not
XWiki core apis time, but it's the logic that is used in the home page
itself.
So it's important to know exactly what you profile.
Either:
1/ You profile a scenario to find out which pages should be improved
version A: no load
version B: with load
2/ You profile your skin alone
3/ You try to profile the core with and without load
(but that last one is complicated because there are many ways to use the
core).
In my view, "load testing" is not even what we are looking at now. It's
something different to look at load, CPU and memory consumption than
looking at raw speed of pages. On this aspect I noticed during load
testing that XWikiDocument cloning is called too much (on getObject()
and therefore by livetables) and has increased in cost with component
reference injection in BaseProperty. We can probably measure that an
XWikiPreference cloning is quite expensive.
Now I agree that checkAccess is interesting (in my tests I'm Admin so we
bypass most of the code there). getXWikiPreference is probably not that
slow, but is called too much. I would look at the message api too, and
the skin finding code.
In general I would think about all the stuff that is actually NOT
changing once you got out of development mode. XWiki is very powerfull
and everything is very dynamic. However once you have put your wiki in
production, you don't necessarly need this dynamicity and you are paying
the code of it.
Maybe we could have an option which says "production mode" in the admin
which activates long term caches for everything that is configurable in
the Wiki:
- skin
- prefs
- translations
What I mean by long term caches, is not even looking at if this data has
changed. Doing this won't reduce a page load from 4 seconds to 0.5
seconds because when you are at 4 seconds it usually means there is
logic that needs to work with more data, but it will more reduce the
currently incompressible part from something like 200ms to 100ms or even
50ms, and therefore would have a lot of effect on the footprint of the
web server. It won't fix the time of loading of JS and CSS which is
quite significant too.
Now the big question is what to focus on in priority. That's one the
objectives of the investigation process. See what makes more sense to
focus on.
I'll try to list all the areas that can be looked at. Clearly the
current document puts a bit to core part aside.
Ludovic
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 Dubost
Blog:
http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki:
http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost