I just started using Laravel. I haven't written almost any code yet, the problem on my site is that it takes 120 seconds to load on the register page, there is no problem on other pages, but when I want to enter the register area, the page takes about 120 seconds to load, what can I do?
I couldn't change anything, I'm just experiencing this late loading in the register field can anyone help?
Solution 1. If the required js vs. cs's for the error in the Software Console are not produced, you need to fill them again and again to reduce the failure. It can read files.
Set max_execution_time 120 to max_input_time -1 memory_limit to at least 512M. Cpanel operators Bug exercises editing controls and minimizes line spacing on those pages. You can easily use it with Laravel Debugbar so that you don't benefit from Cpanel. Finally not sure if it can be seen from DNS Ms, which may be caused by Server Location. Take it easy now. Sorry for the delay.
Related
I have a situation where images are all taking exactly 5 seconds to load on my localhost. It's not happening on live sites and the pages themselves that are fetching data from a MySQL database all load quickly - it seems it is just the image assets.
What I find odd is:
Regardless of image size (the largest image is about 200KB) it is always exactly 5 seconds (see screenshot).
When I check with Google's Lighthouse it scores well for performance and these issues aren't being picked up.
The issues seems to be the painting of the image?
It is only happening on the latest version of MAMP.
I've noticed as well that the phpMyAdmin URL has changed to http://localhost:8888/phpMyAdmin5/ ... I accept this may be versioning URL and not related to the issue but thought I'd mention it.
I also had this following issue which I fixed with the solution given (I don't know if this is related to the problem) Wrong permissions on configuration file, should not be world writable! MAMP
I've never come across anything like this before, and I can't get my head around why it always takes exactly 5 seconds to load an uncached image (multiple images also take a total of 5 seconds)?
The other questions on here (StackOverflow) about MAMP and page-load relate to general page load and caching issues.
Any suggestions most welcome.
Over the past couple of months, I've been on a rampage optimising a Joomla website that I'm managing. When I first started, the homepage used to open in around 30-40 seconds, in spite of repeatedly upgrading my dedicated server, as suggested by the hosting firm.
I was able to bring the pagespeed down to around 800ms by religiously following all the recommendations of the likes of GT Matrix and PingdomTools, (such as using JCH-optimize, .htaccess caching and compression settings, and MaxCDN) but now I'm stuck optimising my my.cnf settings, trying various settings suggested on a number of related articles. The fastest I'm getting the homepage to open - with the current settings - is 777ms after refresh, which might not sound too bad, but look at the configuration of my dedicated server:
2 Quads, 128GB, 2x480GB SSD RAID
CloudLinux/Cpanel/WHM
Apache/suEXEC/PHP5/FastCGI
MariaDB 10.0.17 (all tables converted to XtraDB/InnoDB)
The site traffic is moderate, 10,000 and 20,000 visitors per day, with around 200,000 pageviews.
These are the current my.cnf settings. My goal is to bring the pagespeed down to under 600ms, which should be possible with this kind of hardware, provided it is tuned the right way.
[mysqld]
local-infile=0
max_connections=10000
max_user_connections=1000
max_connect_errors=20
key_buffer_size=1G
join_buffer_size=1G
bulk_insert_buffer_size=1G
max_allowed_packet=1G
slow_query_log=1
slow_query_log_file="diskar/mysql-slow.log"
long_query_time=40
connect_timeout=120
wait_timeout=20
interfactive_timeout=25
back_log=500
query_cache_type=1
query_cache_size=512M
query_cache_limit=512K
query_cache_min_res_unit=2K
sort_buffer_size=1G
thread_cache_size=16
open_files_limit=10000
tmp_table_size=8G
thread_handling=pool-of-threads
thread_stack=512M
thread_pool_size=12
thread_pool_idle_timeout=500
thread_cache_size=1000
table_open_cache=52428
table_definition_cache=8192
default-storage-engine=InnoDB
[innodb]
memlock
innodb_buffer_pool_size=96G
innodb_buffer_pool_instances=12
innodb_additional_mem_pool_size=4G
innodb_log_bugger_size=1G
innodb_open_files=300
innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:400M:autoextend
innodb_use_native_aio=1
innodb_doublewrite=0
innodb_user_atomic_writes=1
innodb_flus_log_at_trx_commit=2
innodb_compression_level=6
innodb_compression_algorithm=2
innodb_flus_method=O_DIRECT
innodb_log_file_size=4G
innodb_log_files_in_group=3
innodb_buffer_pool_instances=16
innodb_adaptive_hash_index_partitions=16
innodb_thread_concurrency
innodb_thread_concurrency=24
innodb_write_io_threads=24
innodb_read_io_threads=32
innodb_adaptive_flushing=1
innodb_flush_neighbors=0
innodb_io_capacity=20000
innodb_io_capacity_max=40000
innodb_lru_scan_depth=20000
innodb_purge_threads=1
innodb_randmon_read_ahead=1
innodb_read_io_threads=64
innodb_write_io_threads=64
innodb_use_fallocate=1
innodb_use_atomic_writes=1
inndb_use_trim=1
innodb_mtflush_threads=16
innodb_use_mfflush=1
innodb_file_per_table=1
innodb_file_format=Barracuda
innodb_fast_shutdown=1
I tried Memcached and APCU, but it didn't work. The site actually runs 2-3 times faster with 'Files' as the caching handler in Joomla's Global Configuration. And yes, I ran my-sqltuner, but that was of no help.
I am newby as far as Linux is concerned and suspect that above settings could be improved. Any comments and/or suggestions?
long_query_time=40
Set that to 1 so you can find out what the slow queries are.
max_connections=10000
That is unreasonably high. If you come anywhere near it, you will have more problems than failure to connect. Let's say only 3000.
query_cache_type=1
query_cache_size=512M
The Query cache is hurting performance by being so large. This is because any write causes all QC entries for the table to be purged. Recommend no more than 50M. If you have heavy writes, it might be better to change the type to DEMAND and pepper your SELECTs with SQL_CACHE (for relatively static tables) or SQL_NO_CACHE (for busy tables).
What OS?
Are the entries in [innodb] making it into the system? I thought these needed to be in [mysqld]. Check by doing SHOW VARIABLES LIKE 'innodb%';.
Ah, buggers; a spelling error:
innodb_log_bugger_size=1G
innodb_flus_log_at_trx_commit=2
inndb_use_trim=1
and more??
After you get some data in the slowlog, run pt-query-digest, and let's discuss the top couple of queries.
I have been using codeigniter for quite sometimes and i really love it. But for some reason i am not sure why but rendering a view in 1 of my application takes 18-23 whole seconds. Well i really wonder why as such time is to be taken for rendering the output.
I am sure about this as i measured the time from it reaching the Index Page till the data collection / preparation from the system. All took not less then a second. Just this rendering of the view page screwed up - taking 19 / 23 random seconds.
I really want to understand why as so and will like to get a proper through solution to work around on the same.
As for now i am caching the output and storing it and playing around with it but i too know it is not so full proof solution. There must be a way to analyze as where and why the rendering takes so much time on the server. If anyone knows anything about the same, please please do update / share on the same.
Have you tried using XDebug? There are a lot of online resources for how to use it in profiling your PHP apps, such as this one by Eric Hogue.
But if you included some sample code of what is happening in your controller and view then perhaps we could offer some specific guidance in this instance.
Removing a call to $this->carabiner->empty_cache(); speeds up our views quite a bit.
My English is not good and I find it really difficult to explain to everybody but please try to read it anyway.
I have a website with a big database. My site lost a lot of time to load page although google for 94/100 (https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/#url=5sonly.com_2Findex.php_3Fmain__page_3Dsearch_26keyword_3Dshirt_26slctbxsb_3D2_26slctbxshppngt_3D223_26page_3D132&mobile=false). I had optimized all content, database and used cache technology but time for the first byte is not good. Example:
When you try to click this link:
http://www.5sonly.com/index.php?main_page=search&keyword=shirt&slctbxsb=2&slctbxshppngt=223&page=132
You will have to wait a long time to the page load.
I had used index/fulltext for the search page but I dont know why my site is still very slow (more 24 seconds).
How can I do to optimize for the first byte time. I can provide all information if you request. Please let me know.
P/S: I have currently disabled cache to you can test better.
I think you are doing heavy calculation at server side so it responds slow,
you can see in image some resource take 7 to 13 seconds to load,
this cause your loading slow.
I've started to add the time taken to render a page to the footer of our internal web applications. Currently it appears like this
Rendered in 0.062 seconds
Occasionally I get rendered times like this
Rendered in 0.000 seconds
Currently it's only meant to be a guide for users to judge whether a page is quick to load or not, allowing them to quickly inform us if a page is taking 17 seconds rather than the usual 0.5. My question is what format should the time be in? At which point should I switch to a statement such as
Rendered in less than a second
I like seeing the tenths of a second but the second example above is of no use to anyone, in fact it just highlights the limits of the calculation I use to find the render time. I'd rather not let the users see that at all! Any answers welcome, including whether anything should be included on the page.
"Rendered instantly" sounds way better than "Rendered in less than a second".
I'm not sure there's any value in telling users how long it took for the server to render the page. It could well be worth you logging that sort of information, but they don't care.
If it takes the server 0.001 of a second to draw the page but it takes 17 seconds for them to load it (due to network, javascript, page size, their rubbish PC, etc) their perception will be the latter.
Then again adding the render time might help you fend off the enquiries about any percieved slowness with a "talk to your local network admin" response.
Given that you know the accuracy of your measurements you could have the 0.000 text be "Rendered in less than a thousandth of a second"
Rather than relying on your users to look at the page footer and to let you know if the value exceeds some patience threshold, it might be a better idea to log the page render times in a log file on the server. Once you have all that raw data, you can look for particular pages that tend to take longer than normal to render.
With more detailed logging, you could also measure the elapsed times in database queries or whatever if your web app relies on external systems.
I think I over-emphasized it was for the users.
I know by using in trace in the web.config I can get accurate information on page render times along with times for accessing the database.
We have in the past had problems with applications running too slowly over the network although it's now fixed I'm adding the label to new applications so that users are aware it is something we are taking seriously and it's a very simple indicator for the developers.
Taking all that into account I like "Rendered Instantly" and write a lot of sense so I'll accept both your answer and kokos'.
Thanks