If i am reading one of my application settings from the web.config everytime when each of my ASP.NET page loads,Would it be a performance issue ?I m concerned about memory too.
It's not great, but in the context of serving up a page, it's just a drop in the bucket. It's not nearly as bad as reading it over and over in a loop, hundreds of times per page view. Lots of pages do things like look up previous visit info (user preferences, cookie tracking, etc..) which usually requires opening a database connection and running a query. So hitting the config file is small potatoes.
You also have to consider how often this really happens. A thousand times per hour? Don't waste your time. A thousand per minute? Stil probably not a problem (a datbase query would probably be a different story though). A thousand times per second, and then you've got reason to try to optomize this.
I don't think I'd worry about it. It is a very small file, and reading from it is very fast.
If it concerns you that much, read it into an Application variable, and reference that throughout the app instead.
Related
If this is the not the right place to ask this please direct me to the correct place.
My question is this. Which is better:
A. a page that uses a lot of resources and a lot of RAM, but only one Apache connection.
B. that same page, loaded from cache, with several ajax calls to populate the parts of it that need live data.
I'm thinking B. The only negative to B is that i'm adding 4-5 Apache connections per page load. But these connections are super small resource wise.
Thanks
This is broad and open-based, so it will likely be closed. The answer depends a lot on what type of page you are serving and what experience you want the user to have. Both options will use a lot of resources in a short period of time, although option B may be easier to load-balance. The downside is that option B also uses a lot more connections, resulting in slower load and render times, not to mention a little more load on Apache itself.
We have been having a bit of a nightmare this last week with a business critical XPage application, all of a sudden it has started crawling really badly, to the point where I have to reboot the server daily and even then some pages can take 30 seconds to open.
The server has 12GB RAM, and 2 CPUs, I am waiting for another 2 to be added to see if this helps.
The database has around 100,000 documents in it, with no more than 50,000 displayed in any one view.
The same database set up as a training application with far fewer documents, on the same server always responds even when the main copy if crawling.
There are a number of view panels in this application - I have read these are really slow. Should I get rid of them and replace with a Repeat control?
There is also Readers fields on the documents containing Roles, and authors fields as it's a workflow application.
I removed quite a few unnecessary views from the back end over the weekend to help speed it up but that has done very little.
Any ideas where I can check to see what's causing this massive performance hit? It's only really become unworkable in the last week but as far as I know nothing in the design has changed, apart from me deleting some old views.
Try to get more info about state of your server and application.
Hardware troubleshooting is summarized here: http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/dominowiki.nsf/dx/Domino_Server_performance_troubleshooting_best_practices
According to your experience - only one of two applications is slowed down, it is rather code problem. The best thing is to profile your code: http://www.openntf.org/main.nsf/blog.xsp?permaLink=NHEF-84X8MU
To go deeper you can start to look for semaphore locks: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21094630, or to look at javadumps: http://lazynotesguy.net/blog/2013/10/04/peeking-inside-jvms-heap-part-2-usage/ and NSDs http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/dominowiki.nsf/dx/Using_NSD_A_Practical_Guide/$file/HND202%20-%20LAB.pdf and garbage collector Best setting for HTTPJVMMaxHeapSize in Domino 8.5.3 64 Bit.
This presentation gives a good overview of Domino troubleshooting (among many others on the web).
Ok so we resolved the performance issues by doing a number of things. I'll list the changes we did in order of the improvement gained, starting with the simple tweaks that weren't really noticeable.
Defrag Domino drive - it was showing as 32% fragmented and I thought I was on to a winner but it was really no better after the defrag. Even though IBM docs say even 1% fragmentation can cause performance issues.
Reviewed all the main code in the application and took a number of needless lookups out when they can be replaced with applicationScope variables. For instance on the search page, one of the drop down choices gets it's choices by doing an #Unique lookup on all documents in the database. Changed it to a keyword and put that in the application Scope.
Removed multiple checks on database.queryAccessRole and put the user's roles in a sessionScope.
DB had 103,000 documents - 70,000 of them were tiny little docs with about 5 fields on them. They don't need to be indexed by the FTIndex so we moved them in to a separate database and pointed the data source to that DB when these docs were needed. The FTIndex went from 500mb to 200mb = faster indexing and searches but the overall performance on the app was still rubbish.
The big one - I finally got around to checking the application properties, advanced tab. I set the following options :
Optimize document table map (ran copystyle compact)
Dont overwrite free space
Dont support specialized response hierarchy
Use LZ1 compression (ran copystyle compact with options to change existing attachments -ZU)
Dont allow headline monitoring
Limit entries in $UpdatedBy and $Revisions to 10 (as per domino documentation)
And also dont allow the use of stored forms.
Now I don't know which one of these options was the biggest gain, and not all of them will be applicable to your own apps, but after doing this the application flies! It's running like there are no documents in there at all, views load super fast, documents open like they should - quickly and everyone is happy.
Until the http threads get locked out - thats another question of mine that I am about to post so please take a look if you have any idea of what's going on :-)
Thanks to all who have suggested things to try.
I was simple cruising through the modx options and i noticed the option to cache snippets. I was wondering what kind of effect this would have (downsides) to my site. I know that caching would improve the loading time of the site by keeping them 'cached' after the first time and then only reloading the updates but this all seems to good to be true. My question is simple: are there any downsides to caching snippets? Cheers, Marco.
Great question!
The first rule of Modx is (almost) always cache. They've said so in their own blog.
As you said, the loading time will be lower. Let's just get the basics on the floor first. When you chose to cache a page, the page with all the output is stored as a file in your cache-folder. If you have a small and simple site, you might not see the biggest difference in caching and not, but if you have a complex one with lots of chunks-in-chunks, snippets parsing chunks etc, the difference is enormous. Some of the websites I've made goes down 15-30 levels to parse the content in come sections. Loading all this fresh from the database can take up to a coupe of seconds, while loading a flat-file would take only a few microseconds. There is a HUGE difference (remember that).
Now. You can cache both snippets and chunks. Important to remember. You can also cache one chunk while uncache the next level. Using Modx's brilliant markup, you can chose what to cache and what to uncache, but in general you want as much as possible cached.
You ask about the downside. There are none, but there are a few cases where you can't use cached snippets/chunks. As mentioned earlier, the cached response is divided into each page. That means that if you have a page (or url or whatever you want to call it), where you display different content based on for example GET-parameters. You can't cache a search-result (because the content changes) or a page with pagination (?page=1, ?page=2 etc would produce different output on the same page). Another case is when a snippet's output is random/different every time. Say you put a random quotes in your header, this needs to be uncached, or you will just see the first random result every time. In all other cases, use caching.
Also remember that every time you save a change in the manager, the cache will be wiped. That means that if you for example display the latest news-articles on your frontpage, this can still be cached because it will not display different content until you add/edit a resource, and then the cache will be cleared.
To sum it all up. Caching is GREAT and you should use it as much as possible. I usually make all my snippets/chunks cached, and if I crash into problems, that is the first thing I check.
Using caching makes your webserver respond quicker (good for the user) and produces fewer queries to the database (good for you). All in all. Caching is a gift. Use it.
There's no downsides to caching and honestly I wonder what made you think there were downsides to it?
You should always cache everything you can - there's no point in having something be executed on every page load when it's exactly the same as before. By caching the output and the source, you bypass the need for processing time and improve performance.
Assuming MODX Revolution (2.x), all template tags you use can be called both cached and uncached.
Cached:
[[*pagetitle]]
[[snippet]]
[[$chunk]]
[[+placeholder]]
[[%lexicon]]
Uncached:
[[!*pagetitle]] - this is pointless
[[!snippet]]
[[!$chunk]]
[[!+placeholder]]
[[!%lexicon]]
In MODX Evolution (1.x) the tags are different and you don't have as much control.
Some time ago I wrote about caching in MODX Revolution on my blog and I strongly encourage you to check it out as it provides more insight into why and how to use caching effectively: https://www.markhamstra.com/modx/2011/10/caching-guidelines-for-modx-revolution/
(PS: If you have MODX specific questions, I'd suggest posting them on forums.modx.com - there's a larger MODX audience there that can help)
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.
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!