We have an application deployed on Windows Azure as a Web Role and we are using Pingdom for testing page load times: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/
The url for the application on Windows Azure is: http://www.doctorspring.com .
The load time of the app is usually around 7s.
The database is an SQL Azure database and the role and the database are in the same zone.
Sample pingdom result: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/CllGggrMz/http://www.doctorspring.com/
Sample pingdom result(with gzip):http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/f2TUbR6OX/www.doctorspring.com
Suspecting that Azure could be the problem, we tried a free hosting from Somee as:
http://www.doctorspring.somee.com
The load time of the app on Somee is around 3.5s.
Sample pingdom result: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/o3gZOjTwH/http://www.doctorspring.somee.com/
That is a huge performance issue for us.
Can you please help us understand the problem with Azure or suggest a method, as to how can we overcome it?
Thanks,
Manish
In both cases, loading the homepage is unacceptably slow - 3.5 seconds to generate a page is around 10 times slower than you need to be when there's no load on the site. I'd expect the site to crumble under even moderate load with this kind of performance.
Without knowing how the site is constructed, it's hard to explain the reason one environment is faster than the other - but my guess is that whatever is generating the page (some kind of CMS?) is the cause. Azure is known to be a touch slow when doing database queries - though normally this only manifests itself under extreme conditions.
I'd recommend tuning the CMS - especially with caching. We found that Azure is normally pretty fast, but when doing database lookups (e.g. retrieving content for the CMS), it can be variable; if your CMS is doing a LOT of database queries to get the homepage content, it's going to be slow.
It's also worth running Yslow - there's some low-hanging fruit on getting performance up.
What services are you running in Azure? Web-role, VM, Website? Are you connecting to an Azure Database instance from the homepage (if so how many distinct calls are you making)?. I'm getting around a 7.5 second load time from London, but to be honest even 3 seconds is too slow for the homepage. It's hard to know what's causing the prolonged page-load but if you are connecting to a DB instance there's a great deal you can do e.g.
Render the page and make some asynchronous calls to spool in additional data.
Make sure your Azure services are running close together
Consider caching database content to a blob. E.g. for the data in "Medical Questions Answered in Last 24 Hours" if you are pulling this from a DB on every load you could considerably speed up access by routinely caching this to a html file stored in a blob container and inject it into the page.
If you must make DB calls from the homepage try to make as few round trips as possible by batching up your queries into a stored procedure.
I've made a lot of assumptions here, but there are certainly things you could do to drastically improve performance on this page.
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!
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.
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
We currently have a Live ASP.NET application (Basically a CMS) running on our IIS7 web-server.
Every once and a while (Talking every few months) it's app pool will go to 100% CPU-usage and stay there until the page times out. We've tried increasing the timeout for the page to 30 minutes in the web.config but it still just stayed at full CPU so I'm presuming it's some form of infinite loop.
It is a massive application, one of the biggest we have, and far too large to blindly search for an issue. The prevailing opinion is that since it's so rare we can just restart the app-pool whenever it happens, but I'd much prefer to fix it.
I have access to the code and full administrator access to the hosting server, and the monitoring software we're running gives me plenty of time to be on the server while the issue is taking place but I can't find any way to get useful data about what's going on at the time without adding a massive constant overhead to the site (Which given it'll take months to happen isn't really viable).
I'm wondering if anyone has some advice as to how I could narrow down our search? A stack trace of the currently running threads would be spectacular, but even just a list of the pages that are actively being served would make a huge difference. I can add code to the project to make it more traceable, but logging everything in the hopes of catching it would be unrealistic (It gets a lot of traffic and we don't want to add significant overhead to page loads).
Tess's blog is an excellent resource on debugging production asp.net applications.
I think this blog post from her blog will be really helpful in getting started in debugging this problem: Hang debugging walkthrough.
Hope this helps
I recommend you to use ASP.Net performance counter, (like the requests queue and number of requests)
I am developing e-commerce project on Asp.Net 3.5 with C#. I am using 3 tiers (Data + Business + UI) structure to reach the data from database (Msql 2005).
There are stored procedures and everything going on from them.(CRUD methods)
There is a performance issue here, project is running so slowly. I couldn't find any problem in transaction model.
Also the project is running on shared hosting at overseas country.Database server and web server are running on different machines.Database server has nearly 1000 databases.
How can I test and learn where is the problem ?
Since there is upwards of 1000 Databases sharing resources I would take a stab that might be your issue.... If you connect to your database and it takes 5 seconds to run a simple query then you can guess the problem.
I would add some stopwatch functionality onto a "testpage" that runs on your web server. This should give you the basic info to see if there is a "bottle neck" in waiting for the database to return your query. If you have made it that far then I would suspect it would be your web server.
Your last option would be be to set up a simple low spec machine with DB and web server on it and just test. Depending on how much traffic your site is getting you should be able to get a pretty good idea of its response time.
Tools such as YSlow might also be of some help however these are usually used more for fine tuning.
Since you're running on a shared hosting service, I would guess that's where your problem is. You're competing for server resources with every other website and database on those servers.
To make sure, I would set up a local environment that mimics your production environment. Then perform some standard stress tests to see how it performs. If it performs how you would expect, then it is probably your hosting solution.
With shared hosting solutions, you really do get what you pay for. If it's a system that requires a lot more speed then you're getting, you should look at a dedicated hosting solution.
I suggest you take a look at Tracing:
http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2005/07/17/2396.aspx
This enables you to see a stack trace (The last picture in the article), and localize your performance bottlenecks.
A quick solution I developed to keep logs of performance on my web app may help you here. I have a web server and DB server running a similar-sounding app. I wrote a web service that runs a "benchmarking" stored procedure and returns the run time. I wrote a win app that runs on my development server that calls the web service, passes it the name of the stored procedure to run, and times how long the whole request takes. The win app writes the data to a log file and runs every 10 minutes as a scheduled task. Extra bells and whistles include automatic emails to team members when performance exceeds the specified threshold 3 consecutive times, fails to connect, and when it recovers to normal performance after a slow period.
This provides a general indication of how a user's experience on the website will be at any given time and serves as a warning bell for the team. Not exactly the best solution, but I wrote it in a couple of hours several months ago and have used the data it creates for troubleshooting purposes many times.