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.
Related
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.
My website http://theminimall.com is taking more loading time than before
initially i had ny server in US at that time my website speed is around 5 sec.
but now i had transferred my server to Singapore and loading speed is got increased is about 10 sec.
the more waiting time is going in getting result from Store Procedure(sql server database)
but when i execute Store Procedure in Sql Server it is returning result very fast
so i assume that the time taken is not due to the query execution delay but the data transfer time from the sql server to the web server how can i eliminate or reduce the time taken any help or advice will be appreciated
thanks in advance
I took a look at your site on websitetest.com. You can see the test here: http://www.websitetest.com/ui/tests/50c62366bdf73026db00029e.
I can see what you mean about the performance. In Singapore, it's definitely fastest, but even there its pretty slow. Elsewhere around the world it's even worse. There are a few things I would look at.
First pick any sample, such as http://www.websitetest.com/ui/tests/50c62366bdf73026db00029e/samples/50c6253a0fdd7f07060012b6. Now you can get some of this info in the Chrome DevTools, or FireBug, but the advantage here is seeing the measurements from different locations around the world.
Scroll down to the waterfall. All the way on the right side of the Timeline column heading is a drop down. Choose to sort descending. Here we can see the real bottlenecks. The first thing in the view is GetSellerRoller.json. It looks like hardly any time is spent downloading the file. Almost all the time is spent waiting for the server to generate the file. I see the site is using IIS and ASP.net. I would definitely look at taking advantage of some server-side caching to speed this up.
The same is true for the main html, though a bit more time is spent downloading that file. Looks like its taking so long to download because it's a huge file (for html). I would take the inline CSS and JS out of there.
Go back to the natural order for the timeline, then you can try changing the type of file to show. Looks like you have 10 CSS files you are loading, so take a look at concatenating those CSS files and compressing them.
I see your site has to make 220+ connection to download everything. Thats a huge number. Try to eliminate some of those.
Next down the list I see some big jpg files. Most of these again are waiting on the server, but some are taking a while to download. I looked at one of a laptop and was able to convert to a highly compressed png and save 30% on the size and get a file that looked the same. Then I noticed that there are well over 100 images, many of which are really small. One of the big drags on your site is that there are so many connections that need to be managed by the browser. Take a look at implementing CSS Sprites for those small images. You can probably take 30-50 of them down to a single image download.
Final thing I noticed is that you have a lot of JavaScript loading right up near the top of the page. Try moving some of that (where possible) to later in the page and also look into asynchronously loading the js where you can.
I think that's a lot of suggestions for you to try. After you solve those issues, take a look at leveraging a CDN and other caching services to help speed things up for most visitors.
You can find a lot of these recommendations in a bit more detail in Steve Souder's book: High Performance Web Sites. The book is 5 years old and still as relevant today as ever.
I've just taken a look at websitetest.com and that website is completely not right at all, my site is amoung the 97% fastest and using that website is says its 26% from testing 13 locations. Their servers must be over loaded and I recommend you use a more reputatable testing site such as http://www.webpagetest.org which is backed by many big companies.
Looking at your contact details it looks like the focus audience is India? if that is correct you should use hosting where-ever your main audience is, or closest neighbor.
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.
No, this is NOT the "my page doesn't have any traffic and it has to be reloaded" issue.
We have 4 dynos for an alpha application. The reason we do, is because each page takes over 2 seconds to load. Even little things like rendering a text string (no layouts, erb or anything).
If I watch our logs, for our longer queries, they report response times in the 300-700ms range--which is far shorter than 2 seconds.
The DNS is cached, and the collective time to load given that isn't a slow DNS issue. And, that shouldn't affect subsequent page loads, right?
Any thoughts on how to get to the bottom of this would be appreciated.
Here are two screenshots to show what I mean.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7175041/Screenshots/qo.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7175041/Screenshots/qq.png
Thanks!
First thing I'd do is to switch on NewRelic Basic - it's a free performance monitor integrated with Heroku. That'll help you get a bearing on the basics of where the trouble is coming from.
I take it that you don't see similar results locally? If you don't, then skip this step, but if you do, you can also run NewRelic locally and interrogate all of your queries for response times.
I'd stay away from using things like the Benchmark library - that was my first thought in troubleshooting a speed issue, but Benchmark is necessarily going to ignore elements of your app that are outside the pure Ruby layer, and if that's where you're slow then NewRelic catches that anyway.
Finally, if all else fails, a support ticket with Heroku's team has always been extremely helpful to me. Just make sure you check the box that lets them clone your app, it makes things a lot easier for them.
Let us know what you find out - I'm curious to see what the particular gremlin is!
Right now a large application I'm working on downloads all small images separately and usually on demand. About 1000 images ranging from 20 bytes to 40kbytes. I'm trying to figure out if there will be any client performance improvements by using a ClientBundle for the smaller most used ones.
I'm putting the 'many connections high latency' issue for the side now and just concentrate on javascript/css/browser performance.
Some of the images are used directly within CSS. Are there any performance improvements by "spriting" them vs using as usual?
Some images are created as new Image(url). Is it better to leave them this way, move them into CSS and apply styles dinamically or load from a ClientBundle?
Some actions have a result a setURL on an image. I've seen that the same code can be done with ClientBundle and it will probably set the dataURI for that image. Will doing improve performance or is it faster this way?
I'm specifically talking about runtime more than startup time, since this is an application which sees long usage times and all images will probably be cached in the first 10 minutes, so round-trip is not an issue (for now).
Short answer is not really (for FF, chrome, safari, opera) BUT sometimes for IE (<9)!!!
Lets look at what client bundle does
Client bundle packages every image into one ...bundle... so that all you need is one http connection to get all of them... and it requires only one freshness lookup the next time you load your application. (rather than n times, n being the number of your tiny images.. really wasteful.)
So its clear that client bundle greatly improves your apps load time.
Runtime Performance
There maybe times when one particular image fails to get downloaded or gets lost over the internet. If you make 1000 connections, the probability of something going wrong increases (however little). FF, Chrome, Safari, Opera simply put the image not found logo and move on with the running. IE <9 however, will keep trying to get those particular images, using up one connection of the two its allowed. That really impacts performance in IE.
Other than that, there will be some performance improvement if you keep loading new widgets asynchronously and they end up downloading images at a later stage.
Jai