My company uses SilverStripe v3.1.21, along with the Subsite module to display and administer a number of clients' websites that sell products. This results in close to 200 subsites and a page count in the tens of thousands. The websites are very slow to load and tools such as Google's PageSpeed tell us page speeds are poor. We've already done step like combining and minimising the JS and compressing resources such as imaging, which gave some improvements, however the pages remain slow. The system was handed to us in this state and further hardware upgrades are not on the table as an option, nor are gaining additional resources for redevelopment.
We've taken a look at the static publish module (https://github.com/silverstripe/silverstripe-staticpublisher) and found that when we generating static pages the pages become fast and get a good score on the various tools, however the process to regenerate all of these pages takes over 14 hours, which is unacceptable given these products are updated from an external source daily. We also find that the regeneration process is a memory hog, as the module builds all of the pages in memory before dumping to file, causing the process to crash. We've had to alter the process to go subsite-by-subsite just to make it run.
We then took a look at the static publishing queue module (https://github.com/silverstripe/silverstripe-staticpublishqueue), which seemed to address our issues by having it queue pages as needed for regeneration, making it much more responsive to changes. However, the module seems to be very buggy and often crashes when generating pages.
Has anyone had experience using these modules (or similar) with larger sites and may be able to provide any pointers or ideas on how to implement static publishing successfully?
We are using staticpublishqueue currently on several sites. The only problem we've had with it is crashing due to long builds and poor locking. Or to be precise it doesn't actually crash but keeps spawning more and more instances until the server becomes unresponsible.
I think we have a fix for this in our fork. At least we haven't had any problems after using the modified locking. You could try installing the fork instead of the official version. If this fixes things for you maybe we should make a pull request :)
First of: We only use staticpublishqueue, I don't have any experience in regards to the sub site module. So I can't speak for your exact combination.
We are using staticpublishqueue on a huge site. Setup: We have multiple servers running the SilverStripe Website. They share a MySQL Database and use Redis as a session store.
One great thing about staticpublishqueue: you can run it in parallel. So the servers all run an instance of staticpublishqueue and publish into a shared folder, which is then synced to a nginx load balancer in front of the actual webservers. Works quite nice, but it does not scale indefinitely. At some point the staticpublishqueue instances start to pick the same record to render and waste resources. I think about 6 is the max for us.
Couple of things we learned regarding staticpublishqueue:
do not run to many instances at the same time (see above)
make sure it has enough ram
make sure it runs as the same user as the website
the record look it uses is not compatible with a MariaDB Galera Cluster
If possible switch to SilverStripe 3.6.x and PHP7. The performance gain is huge.
We are migrating away from staticpublishqueue to Cloudflare (or maybe another CDN). Why? Because if a page that is requested has not been rendered yet the server will render it for each request individually and then throw it away. Until the que does a separate render for the cache. Total waste of resources, especially if you purge your cache after a sitewide layout change or something.
Related
This may very well be a question that is too broad to answer but any ideas would be incredibly beneficial. I have a web site where load times are incredibly slow in one environment but not the other. In general, the time to first byte is around 15 seconds on most pages. It takes this long on every page within the entire application and not only on first load. I have been troubleshooting the issue for several days now and feel completely lost as to the actual cause for the latency.
Now for a long explanation about the issue.
The environment is a Frankenstein monster of different sources where too many people have had their hands in it, from what I can gather. I have carefully taken the time to compare each of the two environments and haven't identified a key difference. There are numerous things at play here, but I can summarize the main components.
It is a .NET web application built using Orchard CMS running within IIS and has a SQL Server backend. A dedicated server hosts the database and the another dedicated server hosts the web application itself, which is pretty standard. The main difference between the environments is the production site is running in Liquid Web and the new development site is running in AWS. Basically, the site will ultimately be migrated to AWS once the latency issues are resolved.
AWS has more than enough resources. In fact, production (Liquid Web) has been running into issues as of late due to the CPU usage being nearly maxed out. There are many more resources in AWS, and neither of the servers appear to be using more than 1% or 2% of their available resources. I verified this.
If the issue is within the database, I'm not really sure where else to look. I used SQL Server Profiler on the database server to analyze traffic and no transactions were taking more than a half second, aside from the Audit Logins/Outs (which from my research is normal behavior). The main database queries execute almost immediately after trying to navigate to a page within the site, not 15 seconds later when the page loads.
I had a thought that the network traffic in AWS application server and the database server could be bottlenecked somewhere. However, resolving the application locally does not improve performance. I thought it could have been an issue with the routing within the domain, such as the way in which DNS is set up, but that does not seem to be the case either... or perhaps it is, and I just haven't figured out the best way to troubleshoot that. Either way, resolving the application on localhost does not improve performance. The page still hangs for 15-20 seconds.
The vRAM usage for the site's application pool and the default app pool certainly does seem on the high end, if that makes a difference.
I have browsed the IIS logs and cannot find anything obvious. Granted, I don't have much experience in IIS and could be missing something. Windows Event logs show me nothing out of the ordinary either. There are some errors in both Liquid Web and AWS in regards to printer drivers not being installed, but those have nothing to do with the application itself.
I am unsure of how to check if it has something to do with the Orchard CMS. Granted, this is just a package/framework that was migrated over into the dev server, directly along with the application itself. I see nothing that would have changed within the environment.
The fact is that the two environments seem identical, yet one is running very slowly based on some factor that I just can't seem to identify.
Thank you!
So I've attached the resource usage of my wordpress website over the past 30 days.
You can see the I/O usage has been getting higher and more frequent. I think this is a problem that has caused a massive drop in visits to my site.
I asked my host why this is and he said backs up usually contribute largely to this. Only thing is, I backup once a month not every day.
I've tried optimising my database, disabling plugins but I don't understand why it keeps getting higher.
I have a Analytics plugin that refreshes every hour but I've had that all year and I/O usage only started getting high recently.
The only thing I can think of is Wp Super Cache and CloudFlare not working well together. I've tried different configurations but hasn't helped.
Any help would be appreciated.
I think this is a pretty standard IO log, Over time your db does get a lot bigger and so does your users who end up using a lot of IO. I dont think there is anything to panic right away, but obviously if this is a very huge difference from what you are used to see normally then i think you should look into it seriously. I take caching very seriously and i usually use W3 total cache for this kind of performance optimization. Its a bit tricky in the begining but once you are used to it, it very easy.
I know you might just want to improve the IO, for which mostly you just need caching but here are somethings that i would do to get the most performance out of a site.
1) If you are using a VPS or dedicated server install memcache or something like Redis, and then configure your plugin according to it. You might have to enable it in your php.ini file but once installed you will see the difference. It will execute the code and give you a save the results in the RAM, on the next request instead of executing the php code it will just hand over the same results. Now it depends on your website, and whether you want to cache it or not. You can setup individual pages to use caching as well.
2) If your plugin has options to automatically minify and combine html/css/js files then use it, if not then you should minify and combine them into a single file or as less number of files as possible and then manually upload to your server. It will reduce a lot of time that is spent on requesting a file and waiting for getting the response back. Its usually in milliseconds but if you have a lot of files then it does add up to seconds + unnecessary load on the server.
3)If your plugin has gzip feature, then enable it. It will allow your users to download the gzipped css and js files instead of the original large files. This will enormously reduce the number of bits a browser have to download on every attempt.
4) Enable caching of files on the browser, your plugin might already have this, but if not then you will have to set some headers which will tell the browser to cache the css and js files in the user browser. So the next time when the user goes to the next page on your website, instead of calling the css/js files from the server it loads them directly from the Cache.
5) Upload your css/js/images files to a CDN, that way whenever someone requests a file it will use the shortest route to get your users browser.
6) If your site is not just a personal blog and is making serious money or you just want to please all the huge growing number your users. Then i would suggest you look into auto scaling server platforms, where you set some triggers and the number of servers automatically increase when facing a lot of users / IO and once the number of users go back to normal it automatically scales down. One of the big boys for this sort of service would be AWS beanstalk, microsoft azure. Or you can use beanstalkd with digital ocean which is a cheap alternative.
7) Wordpress is quite compatible with facebook's HHVM which is an opensource virtual machine designed to use php as just in time (JIT). Php is an interpreted language i.e its written in C/C++ (you can checkout the code at github), so when ever you refresh a page, hundred's of line of php code is interpretted by C++ and then compiled and executed. What HHVM does is that it compiles the code and keep it in memory, so when someone else requests the same page it already has a compiled version so it just executes and serves it. So it removes 30-40% of the compiling time from every request, which in turn makes your site 30-40% faster. Now PHP7 is already out last month and it does have a lot of performance upgrades, so if you are still not sure about HHVM you should definitely try upgrading to PHP7.
I know next to nothing about Drupal but I do have a question. We had a site, written in straight HTML and PHP, that loaded the main page in 1-2 seconds and made 25 requests to the server to get the data it needed. A new Drupal version of the site takes 5-6 seconds to load the main page, which is no more complicated than the old page, and makes 127 requests (I'm watching Firebug NET) to the server to get the data it needs.
Is this typical?
Thanks.
Yep a 3x performance hit is natural to Drupal, or most of large scale PHP application framework. Bootstraping Drupal is a costly operation as it requires loading a lot of files. Drupal is also known to perform too much DB queries in order to produce a single page.
The first step is to enable page caching and JS/CSS aggregation. This can be done from the administration page at Administration >> Configuration >> Performance (in Drupal 7).
But a 1-2 seconds load time on a lightweight PHP site is a sign of a either overloaded or badly tuned hosting. You should ensure you site is running in a recent PHP version (PHP is getting faster and faster with each version). Also enable APC (or any other opcache), even with the default settings it can greatly improve Drupal's performances. With APC, try increasing the shared memory size (eg. apc.shm_size = 64 in php.ini).
You should also try profiling your site to identify the actual bottle necks. With Drupal making several requests per page, the DB quickly becomes the bottle neck. Drupal support using multiple slave servers for read queries.
About the database, Drupal uses an internal cache which by default is stored in the database. So this cache does not deal well with overloaded database. Drupal's cache is pluggable. It can be configured to use memcache, redis or mongodb for its storage. This could greatly reduce the load on the database.
Yes drupal is slow.
Thats why we use caching mecahnisms if ur page is making too many requests
See if u can aggregate ur CSS and JS(This will reduce number of
HTML calls. u can do this from admin)
Use CDN
use memcache or varnish cache
use page cache in apache.
Note:-please provide some actual data split up with some load testing tools
How much requests are sent to server? it also matters but drupal has solutions for it. Drupal combine all css files in to a single file to make server calls low, and similarly for js files.
But the speed also matters on server side code, database operations. Drupal is a powerful system which makes complex things easy (and yes easy things complex) and provides such capabilities so that a user can make a complete portal without a line of coding. But all these features come by the cost of performance. Internally drupal do lots of operations and it makes it slow.
Those operations includes views and block operations and the more complex the view / block / form is, the more operations there will be, and hence it will take more time.
Also if the site contents are increased then it will be become more slow. Because drupal consider every content as a node, and for all of your content types (for example news, cms pages, testimonials and so on) data is stored in a single node table (some other tables are also used, but your main contents are stored in node table). So when the contents are increased, the load on that single table is increased, which cause slow database operations, because the more big your table size is, the more operation time it will be taking.
I may be wrong, but Drupal is slow :P
Recently our customers started to complain about poor performance on one of our servers.
This contains multiple large CMS implementations and alot small websites using Sitefinity.
Our Hosting team is now trying to find the bottlenecks in our environments, since there are some major issues with loadtimes. I've been given the task to specify one big list of things to look out for, devided into different the parts (IIS, ASP.NET, Web specific).
I think it'd be good to find out how many instances of the Sitecore CMS we can run on one server according to the Sitecore documentation e.d. We want to be able to monitor and find out where our bottleneck is at this point. Some of our websites load terribly slow, other websites load very fast. Most of our Sitecore implementations that run on this server have poor back-end performance, and have terrible load times after a compilation.
Our Sitecore solutions run on a Win 2008 64 server with Microsoft SQL Server 2008 for db's.
I understand that it might be handy to specify more detailed information about our setup, but I'm hoping we'd be able to get some usefull basic information regarding how to monitor and find bottlenecks e.d.
What tools / hints / tips & tricks do you have?
do NOT use too many different asp.net pools, called and as dedicate pool in plesk. Place more sites on the same pool.
More memory, or stop non used programs/services on the server
Check if you have memory limits on the application pool that make the pool continues auto-restarts.
On the database, set Recovery Mode to simple.
Shrink database files, and reindex database, from inside the program
after all that Defrag your disks
Check the memory with process explorer.
To check whats starts with your server use the autoruns but be careful not to stop any critical service and the computer never starts again. Do not stop services from autoruns, use the service manager to change the type to manual. Also many sql serve services they not need to run if you never used them.
Some other tips
Move the temporary files / and maybe asp.net build directory to a different disk
Delete all files from temporary dir ( cd %temp% )
Be sure that the free physical memory is not zero, using the process exporer. If its near zero, then your server needs memory, or needs to stop non using programs from running.
To place many sites under the same pool, you need to change the permissions of the sites under the new share pool. Its not difficult, just take some time and organize to know what site runs under what pool. Now let say that you have 10 sites, its better to use 2 diferent pools, and spread the sites on this pools base on the load of each site.
There are no immediate answer to Sitecore performance tuning. But here are some vital tips:
1) CACHING
Caching is everything. The default Sitecore cache parameters are rarely correct for any application. If you have lots of memory, you should increase the cache sizes:
http://learnsitecore.cmsuniverse.net/en/Developers/Articles/2009/07/CachingOverview.aspx
http://sitecorebasics.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/sitecore-caching/
http://blog.wojciech.org/?p=9
Unfortunately this is something the developer should be aware of when deploying an installation, not something the system admin should care about...
2) DATABASE
The database is the last bottleneck to check. I rarely touch the database. However, the DB performance can be increased with the proper settings:
Database properties that improves performance:
http://www.theclientview.net/?p=162
This article on index fragmentation is very helpful:
http://www.theclientview.net/?p=40
Can't speak for Sitefinity, but will come with some tips for Sitecore.
Use Sitecores caching whenever possible, esp. on XSLTs (as they tend to be simpler than layouts & sublayouts and therefore Sitecore caching doesn't break them, as Sitecore caching does to asp.net postbacks), this ofc will only help if rederings & sublayouts etc are accessed a lot. use /sitecore/admin/stats.aspx?site=website to check stuff that isn't cached
Use Sitecores profiler, open up an item in the profiler and see which sublayouts etc are taking time
Only use XSLTs for the simplest content, if it get anymore complicated than and I'd go for sublayouts (asp.net controls), this is a bit biased as I'm not fond of XSLT, but experience indicates that .ascx's are faster
Use IIS' content expiration on the static files (prob all of /sitecore and if you have some images, javascript & CSS files) this is for IIS 6: msdn link
Check database access times with Sitecore Databasetest.aspx (the one for Sitecore 6 is a lot better than the simple one that works on Sitecore 5 & 6) Sitecore SDN link
And that's what I can think of from the top of my head.
Sitecore has a major flaw, its uses GUIDs for primary keys (amongst other poorly chosen data types), this fragments the table from the first insert and if you have a heavily utilised Sitecore database the fragmentation can be greater than 90% within an hour. These is not a well-designed database and recommend looking at other products until they fix this, it is causing us a major performance headache (time and money).
We are at a stand still we cannot add anymore RAM cannot rebuild the indexes more often
Also, set your IIS to recycle the app_pool ONLY once a day at a specific time. I usually set mine for 3am. This way the application never goes to sleep, recycle or etc. Best to reduce spin up times.
Additionally configure IIS to 'always running' instead of 'on starup'. This way, when the application restarts, it recompiles immediately and again, is ready to roar.
Sitefinity is really a fantastic piece of software (hopefully my tips above get the thumbs up, and not my endorsement of the product). haha
I have tried looking at "related" questions for answers to this but they don't seem to actually be related...
Basically I have a VB.Net application with a catalogue, administration section (which can alter the catalogue, monitor page views etc etc) and other basic pages on the customer front end.
When I compile and run the app on my local machine it seems to compile fairly quickly and run very fast. However when deployed on the server it seems to take forever and a day on the very first page load (no matter what page it is, how many stylesheets / JS files there are, how many images there are, how big the page markup is and so on). After this ALL the pages load really fast. My guess is this is due to having to load the code from scratch; after that, until it is recycled, the application runs perfectly fast. Does anyone have any idea how I could speed this part of the application up? I am afraid that some customers (on slow connections such as my own at less than dial-up speed) may be leaving the site never to return as a result of it not loading fast enough. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Richard
PS If you refer to some of my other questions you will find out a bit more about the system, such as the fact that most of the data is loaded into objects on the first page load - I am slowly sorting this out but it does not appear to be making all that much of a difference. I have considered using Linq-to-SQL instead but that, as far as I know, does not give me too much flexibility. I would rather define my own system architecture and make it specific to the company, rather than working within the restrictions of Linq-to-SQL.
If you can, the quickest easiest solution is simply to configure the AppDomain not to recycle after a period of inactivity. How this is accomplished differs between IIS 6 & IIS 7.
Another option is to write a small utility program that requests a page from your site every 4 minutes and set it up as a scheduled task on another PC that is on all the time. That at least will prevent the timeout and consequent AppDomain recycle from happening. It is a hack, to be sure, but sometimes any solution is better than none.
The proper solution, however, is to precompile your views. How exactly to accomplish and deploy that will depend on the exact type of Visual Studio project your web site is.