Speed of XH?

[svasti]

Hi developers,

we advertise XH as very speedy.... however I am just converting a site to XH and find, that the former site is drastically faster on my localhost. The site was done with smarty, really a completely different way to do things compared to XH.

Seeing the speed difference I checked old version of CMSimple(_XH):
CMSimpleSE32 is still pretty fast, XH 1.4 also, but 1.6.x makes me think I'll need a new computer

May however not make much of a difference on a modern server where the bottleneck becomes the internet connection.

[cmb]

however I am just converting a site to XH and find, that the former site is drastically faster on my localhost. The site was done with smarty, really a completely different way to do things compared to XH.

I suppose that the site done with Smarty has server side caching enabled.

Seeing the speed difference I checked old version of CMSimple(_XH):
CMSimpleSE32 is still pretty fast, XH 1.4 also, but 1.6.x makes me think I'll need a new computer

Hm, now I'm somewhat surprised. I have not noticed a noticeable performance decay from 1.5 to 1.6, but I didn't do any serious testing with identical (besides different CMSimple(_XH) versions) sites.

May however not make much of a difference on a modern server where the bottleneck becomes the internet connection.

Indeed. Nonetheless, we should keep CMSimple_XH as fast as reasonably possible.

[cmb]

I've made some test with default installations[1] of several CMSimple variants. I've tested the server side performance with:

Code: Select all

ab -n 100 -c 2 http://...

I got the following results (time per request):

Code: Select all

CMSimple 3.4        17.601 [ms] (mean)
CMSimple_XH 1.4.5   58.37 [#/sec] (mean)
CMSimple_XH 1.6.2   58.283 [ms] (mean)
CMSimple 4.4.3      51.403 [ms] (mean)

Basically, what I had expected: CMSimple 3.4 is much faster than the others, mostly because there is no plugin loader involved, I suppose.

Then I've measured the overall performance in a browser (current Chrome):

Code: Select all

CMSimple 3.4        ~ 90ms
CMSimple_XH 1.4.5   ~ 110ms
CMSimple_XH 1.6.2   ~ 125ms
CMSimple 4.4.3      ~ 250ms

(The bad performance of CMSimple 4.4.3 is mostly due to jQuery apparently being loaded always by default, and additionally due to the template images.)

So, I don't see any general issues. Can you please make some measurements in your environment? If the performance difference between XH 1.4 and XH 1.6 (don't use 1.6 resp. 1.6.1, because they are slow, due to slow checking for malformed UTF-8) is caused by the initial request, profiling that would be good.

[1] Of course, that is not "fair", because there are different templates, contents and plugins involved.

PS: FWIW: Saving the start page of XH 1.6.2 as static webpage, improves the overall performance to ~ 70ms, and the processing of the initial request to 3.860 [ms] (mean).

[svasti]

Just installed app.telemetry Page Speed Monitor and find that loading the same page thrice gives 3 completely different values.
Now with testing I find that naked 1.6.2 doesn't seem to be any slower than older versions. Around 1 sec. So that's good.

Log in to my plugins page (with lots of plugins) on localhost just took 6.5 sec. Strange, repeating it took only 1.7 sec.

[cmb]

Just installed app.telemetry Page Speed Monitor

Interesting! I didn't know this FF extension. However, the network tab of the FF developer tools should give similar information (see http://cmsimpleforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 757#p42027).

Log in to my plugins page (with lots of plugins) on localhost just took 6.5 sec. Strange, repeating it took only 1.7 sec.

That seems to be quite normal, as the OS will partially cache the directory information (I have experienced even way more than factor 4). So it's reasonable to reload pages a few times, until really measuring.

Now with testing I find that naked 1.6.2 doesn't seem to be any slower than older versions. Around 1 sec. So that's good.

Well, 1 sec. for the default XH 1.6.2 in the front-end is pretty much. IIRC it took a similar time on my old 1.6 GHz Atom nettop (roughly 2 sec. for back-end access).

[svasti]

Just going to the RoadMap, whose start page opened fairy fast. However going to 1.6.3 took 24813 ms

Edit: Afterwards it was fine again. It looks as if sometimes XH wouldn't get the necessary computing power at the start and would have to wait ?

[Holger]

Just going to the RoadMap, whose start page opened fairy fast. However going to 1.6.3 took 24813 ms

Edit: Afterwards it was fine again. It looks as if sometimes XH wouldn't get the necessary computing power at the start and would have to wait ?

Yes, we had some performance issues the last weeks with the board, and the other XH-websites.
Since everything is hosted on an old shared hosting package, I've contacted the support and ask for assistance.
They found out that this really old package was running on old hardware with some limitations. They have moved all my stuff to a newer one with better performance and a higher memory-limit.
Since then everything is running much better than before.

To be sure, I've started to monitor the response times of the domains every 5 minutes (I'll send you the the login by PM).

I hope the performance will be ok for the next months, otherwise we must move some things to somewhere else.

Please contact me, if you notice permanent performance issues in the future.