From: <pca...@bi...> - 2009-12-10 19:32:58
|
Hi Mike, What are you using to benchmark? . I am still interested in performance but I keep getting yanked to other projects. It may be the deal breaker for tiki in the next phase for one client. :{ Tricia Kerr, Michael E (Mike) wrote: > I just upgraded our backup DB to 4.0 and installed 4.0 in a separate > file system. Benchmarking 2.0 vs 4.0 I have the following: > > 2.0 Homepage: > [ Execution time: 0.76 secs ] [ Memory usage: 11.98MB ] [ 201 > database queries used in 0.1 secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ Server load: > 0.38 ] > > 4.0 Homepage: > [ Execution time: 3.36 secs ] [ Memory usage: 14.54MB ] [ 184 > database queries used in 0.2 secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ Server load: > 0.27 ] > > Part of this, I'm convinced, is messed up category permissions that I > haven't had a chance to correct. > > > 2.0 Tracker 26 List: > [ Execution time: 34.87 secs ] [ Memory usage: 14.53MB ] [ 249 > database queries used in 26. secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ Server load: > 0.68 ] > > 4.0 Tracker 26 List: > [ Execution time: 40.66 secs ] [ Memory usage: 15.14MB ] [ 215 > database queries used in 26. secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ Server load: > 0.21 ] > > > Notwithstanding there may be category permission issues, it looks like > Tiki 4.0 performance (for me, anyway) isn't any better than 2.0, unless > there is some MySQL performance stuff I'm missing. > > Mike. > > ______________________________ > Mike Kerr > Sr. Internet Network Engineer > (703) 886-2251 > mik...@ve... > "I didn't come here to be ordinary." > > verizonbusiness > global capability. personal accountability. > http://www.verizonbusiness.com > This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the > addressee unless otherwise indicated. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sylvie Greverend [mailto:sgr...@gm...] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:29 PM >> To: Tikiwiki developers >> Subject: Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Tracker Performance? >> >> If somebody wants to backport all the optimizations that have been >> > done > >> in 4 (by lph and myself), fine but I will not accept it in proposed. >> Fine in a special branch. Some are very risky. I even think it will >> > bug > >> in 4 in the plugins with imbricated fields (like computed and items >> list...) if the fields are not specifically specified. For 4, the >> > fields > >> param can be explicitly specified unitl it is fully tested. >> As we say in France : do not put the plow before the oxes >> My 2 cents >> sylvie >> >> >> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 18:53 +0100, Xavier de Pedro wrote: >> >>> Ok, thanks for the information to all who replied. >>> >>> It seems to me that if we are promoting Tiki 3.x as the Long Term >>> Support (LTS), a backport to 3.x-proposed of such a nice enhancement >>> > of > >>> trackers made by sylvie in Tiki 4.x (according to the performance >>> improvement reported in this thread), might be awesome! >>> >>> My 2 cents >>> >>> Xavi >>> P.S. I'm willing to pay for precarios.org if needed for such a >>> > backport > >>> from an experienced coder (I wouldn't want to break the stable >>> > branch > >>> 3.x myself or make the Quality Team too busy unnecessarily with a >>> > bad > >>> commit from myself to proposed). Just drop me a message off list if >>> anybody can take care of such backport for some money in exchange. >>> >>> En/na Kerr, Michael E (Mike) ha escrit: >>> >>>> Okie doke, will proceed to upgrade to 4.0 and benchmark. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Mike. >>>> >>>> ______________________________ >>>> Mike Kerr >>>> Sr. Internet Network Engineer >>>> (703) 886-2251 >>>> mik...@ve... >>>> "I didn't come here to be ordinary." >>>> >>>> verizonbusiness >>>> global capability. personal accountability. >>>> http://www.verizonbusiness.com >>>> This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by >>>> > the > >>>> addressee unless otherwise indicated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Michael Risch [mailto:Mic...@ma...] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:12 PM >>>>> To: tik...@li... >>>>> Subject: Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Tracker Performance? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if Syvlie's changes were backported to 3.3. As I >>>>> > recall, > >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> slowdown was not in the queries (although there was a 4x >>>>> > reduction > >> for >> >>>>> me), but mostly in the processing of data that wasn't really >>>>> >>>>> >>>> displayed. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The changes now forego processing of data that doesn't need to be >>>>> displayed. Thus, I would say you need to benchmark against 4.x >>>>> > before > >>>> you >>>> >>>> >>>>> make any decisions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> <tik...@li...> 11/24/2009 6:00 >>>>>>>> > PM > >>>>> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:55:46 +0000 >>>>> From: "Kerr, Michael E (Mike)" <mik...@ve...> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Tracker Performance? >>>>> To: Tikiwiki developers <tik...@li...> >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> <2C719ECECC2B1049AA6B5143ABF4503E0127D109@ASHEVS004.mcilink.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>>> >>>>> Here are my preliminary benchmarks at a relative lull in site >>>>> >> activity >> >>>>> at the end of the day: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.2 >>>>> >>>>> Homepage >>>>> >>>>> [ Execution time: 1.40 secs ] [ Memory usage: 12.13MB ] >>>>> > [ > >>>> 203 >>>> >>>> >>>>> database queries used in 0.1 secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ >>>>> > Server > >>>> load: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 0.01 ] >>>>> >>>>> Tracker 26 List >>>>> >>>>> [ Execution time: 8.56 secs ] [ Memory usage: 14.58MB ] >>>>> > [ > >>>> 249 >>>> >>>> >>>>> database queries used in 0.1 secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ >>>>> > Server > >>>> load: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 0.10 ] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.3 >>>>> >>>>> Homepage >>>>> >>>>> [ Execution time: 1.53 secs ] [ Memory usage: 13.39MB ] >>>>> > [ > >>>> 134 >>>> >>>> >>>>> database queries used in 0.0 secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ >>>>> > Server > >>>> load: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 0.05 ] >>>>> >>>>> Tracker 26 List >>>>> >>>>> [ Execution time: 9.59 secs ] [ Memory usage: 15.09MB ] >>>>> > [ > >>>> 167 >>>> >>>> >>>>> database queries used in 0.0 secs ] [ GZIP Disabled ] [ >>>>> > Server > >>>> load: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 0.2 ] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This sort of leads me to think that I may have some odd settings >>>>> > I > >>>> need >>>> >>>> >>>>> to resolve somewhere, either in PHP or MySQL... If I run two >>>>> > windows > >>>>> side by side and query the 2.2 install on Tracker 26's list in >>>>> > one > >>>>> window and 3.3 install on the same list in the other, the 2.2 >>>>> > install > >>>>> comes up after about 9 seconds, and I guess since the 2.2 query >>>>> > is > >>>>> churning, the 3.3 gets queued up or something because it lasts >>>>> > for > >>>> about >>>> >>>> >>>>> 16 seconds. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a way to see where the delay is occurring? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The server I'm on is a VMWare blade with 2G, 80G of HD space, >>>>> >> 3.66GHz, >> >>>>> and all that's running on it is Apache and MySQL. PHP is set for >>>>> >> 64M. >> >>>>> >>>>> [mysqld] >>>>> >>>>> skip-locking >>>>> >>>>> key_buffer = 256M >>>>> >>>>> max_allowed_packet = 1M >>>>> >>>>> table_cache = 256 >>>>> >>>>> sort_buffer_size = 1M >>>>> >>>>> net_buffer_length = 8K >>>>> >>>>> read_buffer_size = 1M >>>>> >>>>> read_rnd_buffer_size = 4M >>>>> >>>>> myisam_sort_buffer_size = 64M >>>>> >>>>> thread_cache_size = 8 >>>>> >>>>> query_cache_size= 16M >>>>> >>>>> thread_concurrency = 2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [mysql] >>>>> >>>>> no-auto-rehash >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [isamchk] >>>>> >>>>> key_buffer = 128M >>>>> >>>>> sort_buffer_size = 128M >>>>> >>>>> read_buffer = 2M >>>>> >>>>> write_buffer = 2M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [myisamchk] >>>>> >>>>> key_buffer = 128M >>>>> >>>>> sort_buffer_size = 128M >>>>> >>>>> read_buffer = 2M >>>>> >>>>> write_buffer = 2M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If this should be moved somewhere else, please let me know. Just >>>>> doesn't make sense to me why performance isn't getting better >>>>> > with > >>>> less >>>> >>>> >>>>> queries, and why concurrent page loads would have such a large >>>>> performance impact. I will point out that the only major >>>>> > difference > >>>>> between the 2.2 and 3.3 installs (using the same data) is that >>>>> > 3.3 I > >>>>> switched to strasa theme from our custom theme in 2.2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> -- >> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports >>>>> > 2008 > >>>> 30- >>>> >>>> >>>>> Day >>>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - >>>>> > and > >>>> focus >>>> >>>> >>>>> on >>>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new >>>>> > with > >>>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Tikiwiki-devel mailing list >>>>> Tik...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> -------- >> >>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports >>>> > 2008 > >> 30-Day >> >>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - >>>> > and > >> focus on >> >>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new >>>> > with > >>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tikiwiki-devel mailing list >>>> Tik...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ------ >> >>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 >>> > 30- > >> Day >> >>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and >>> >> focus on >> >>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tikiwiki-devel mailing list >>> Tik...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel >>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > >> ---- >> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 >> > 30- > >> Day >> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and >> > focus > >> on >> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >> _______________________________________________ >> Tikiwiki-devel mailing list >> Tik...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Return on Information: > Google Enterprise Search pays you back > Get the facts. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Tikiwiki-devel mailing list > Tik...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel > |