PDA

View Full Version : Slow!!!



Stan
04-15-2006, 07:52 AM
Why is site management so sloooow? I deal with several providers and ony Westhost makes site maintenance a chore due to very slow response. I know it's fixable - so please do it!
Mad

wildjokerdesign
04-15-2006, 03:17 PM
WH is aware of the problem and actually some progress has been made. There is a long way to go but the process invloves some restructering of things that are takeing some time. Haven't really heard much from WH direct on ultimate timeline but I would bet it the true improvements will come sometime this summer. There has been other lengthy descussions on this in the past. :) Believe me we all look forward to the day when Site Manger runs with ease.

I will say one thing it has forced me to learn and use other methods of maintaining sites and I have to say these alternatives offer some great advantages. I use SSH a lot more and it really is not as scary as I once thought. Working right now on move a site from one account to anouther and I can move an entire database in the blink of an eye. No zipping, downloading, uploading and unzipping. Just poof and it is a done deal!

For most apps I don't use the Site Manager but install myself. Found that in the long run it give me more latitude in where and how I want it installed. About the only thing I have to use SM for is the base programs like Perl, Php ect.

All that being said there are going to be clients that just do not have the time or ability to learn these other methods and for WH to be competive in the market they need a fast running Site Manger. That in itself well make it happen. ;)

howard
05-12-2006, 06:32 AM
Wow - I just used Site Manager, and it was the fastest I've seen it! The last time I used it, the change from screen to screen, from, say, email/ftp management to site applications, took about a minute 15 seconds - this morning, the same thing took only about 15 seconds. I could not believe it.

wildjokerdesign
05-12-2006, 09:05 AM
I have been seening a gradual increase in most accounts I work with. Now that you mention it I just worked on one account this morning and it did seem to fly by. :)

rivetcode
10-10-2006, 08:20 PM
It still seems very slow for me. :(

I hope they work on it soon.

wildjokerdesign
10-11-2006, 06:09 PM
rivetcode, It could also have to do with your local setup. At home in KC on my main computer I don't have too much trouble although it still is not as fast as I would like it to be. :) Right now I am out of town on the east coast working on a slow lap top and a hotel connection and I can see a slow down.

WestHost - CRussell
10-15-2006, 10:54 PM
wildjoker is right, the speed of your computer plays a big role in the speed of Site Manager right now. The reason why is there is a lot of client side Java Script that takes place and if you're on a slower computer it will slow things down quite a bit.

The next release of Site Manager we will make sure it's not as client side intensive as well as do many other things to speed it up and make it easier to use.

costelloc
10-21-2006, 09:12 AM
Site Manager is so slow to make it almost unuseable - and this is on a pretty zippy dsl connection. (Using FireFox 1.5.0.7 if that matters)

jalal
10-23-2006, 12:44 PM
I think what Mr Russell was saying is that it isn't a question of connection speed, but the speed of the computer that needs to render the page. I use different computers here and the speed of Site Manager is very different between the two (one is old, one is new).

rolling
10-23-2006, 03:06 PM
I guess that the speed of our server also comes into this. I tried running this benchmark (from WebHostingTalk forum (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=308055))

Download: UnixBench v4.1.0 - WHT Variant (http://members.dslextreme.com/users/andylee/unixbench-4.1.0-wht.tar.gz)

# gunzip -dvc unixbench-4.1.0-wht.tar.gz | tar xvf -
# cd unixbench-4.1.0-wht
# make
# ./Run



================================================== ============
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht)
System -- Linux mydomain.com 2.4.9-e.68 #1 Thu Jan 19 18:43:55 EST 2006 i686 unk nown
/dev/sda8 222461964 130405492 80573616 62% /

Start Benchmark Run: Mon Oct 23 11:56:33 MDT 2006


End Benchmark Run: Mon Oct 23 12:11:03 MDT 2006



INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 3106168.9 82.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 728.2 87.6
Execl Throughput 188.3 906.4 48.1
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 29074.0 108.8
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 9034.0 83.9
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 191275.0 124.3
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 416084.1 37.2
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 117871.5 76.3
Process Creation 569.3 857.1 15.1
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 133.0 29.7
System Call Overhead 114433.5 455596.3 39.8
=========
FINAL SCORE 56.8


which compares with 'jalalski's results (03-07-2005)


================================================== ============
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht)
System -- Linux mydomain.com 2.4.9-e.40 #1 Thu Apr 8 17:03:56 EDT 2004 i686 unknown
/dev/sda7 228163888 37719828 178853968 18% /

Start Benchmark Run: Mon Mar 7 11:14:32 MST 2005

End Benchmark Run: Mon Mar 7 11:30:26 MST 2005

INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 2890020.2 76.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 638.7 76.9
Execl Throughput 188.3 750.0 39.8
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 43519.0 162.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 10776.0 100.1
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 252598.0 164.2
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 368697.2 33.0
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 99909.6 64.7
Process Creation 569.3 714.6 12.6
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 125.0 27.9
System Call Overhead 114433.5 354324.2 31.0
=========
FINAL SCORE 55.2
================================================== ============

Other hosts are scoring almost 300, while a few are scoring as low as 7.5. It appears as though upgrading the kernel to 2.6 will almost double the scoring. Roll on that upgrade!

PeteF
10-24-2006, 12:43 AM
I don't know what to make of benchmark test results posted.
All I know is how SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW site manager
is to respond. Even after the changes made on 10/14/06 that
were supposed to speed up site manager, I'm still frustrated
with the slowness of Site Manager.

For example, today at 2 am Eastern Time, I log into Site manager
and it takes about 10 seconds to get in after entering my password.
(a bit slow but acceptable). Next I click... Site Applications
and wait about 50 seconds for the system to respond (totally
unacceptable). After that, the system seemed to respond within
about 3 seconds any time I clicked another item so maybe things
have improved, but what accounts for the initial slowness to
respond?

I don't use Site Manager frequently so I'm wondering if anyone
has noticed an improvement in speed since westhost made those
changes on 10/14/06.

---pete---

jalal
10-24-2006, 09:48 AM
I get an initial login of about 20 secs, with about 5-8 secs per page after that. With the noticeable exception of Site Applications (70 secs) and the email list (25 secs).
That's on a slow machine, my faster machine will probably do better. Oh, and it's in Firefox 1.5.
I guess the initial slow load is possibly due to loading images and script, which are then in the browser cache for use on the later pages.
I'm not sure if there have been any speed improvements as I rarely use the Site Manager.

rolling
10-24-2006, 06:15 PM
Accessing Site Manager via Dial Up:

Time To Login: 70 secs
Time to display Site Applications: 105 secs
Time to display EMail / FTP: 32 seconds
Time to display Site Management: 28 seconds
Time to display Domain Management: 15 seconds

As to the benchmarks, the benchmark is a Pentium 233 MMX (FreeBSD 2.x, 128MB RAM, SCSI 7200RPM). A value of 100 would represent the same performance, a higher number better and a lower number worse. So in comparison, we do quite well on File Read, but very badly on Process Creation. Does this matter? Maybe not, but if your site or application is slow then benchmarking can provide a pointer to the solution. Incidentally, it appears from comparing other results as though systems with plenty of RAM per VPS do better at process creation. One reason may be a lack of memory fragmentation.

Other hosts limit the cycles, CPU Utilisation or memory that you can use from within your VPS. Westhost does not do so explicity. They simply state that any process they determine adversely affects their server performance or network integrity may be shut down without prior notice and that our servers are all Pentium 4 Servers with 4GB of RAM, RAID, Gigabit Ethernet and Red Hat ES Linux OS w/Apache. Split that between 300 sites and we get 13MB each.

I have to add that I am generally happy with Westhost. The service they provide is good and I can do what I want (for now) at a price that keeps me happy. I just want to keep them on their toes and work out any bugs ;-)

artbuilders
12-28-2006, 03:37 PM
OK... let's just stop blaming people's PCs and DSL and focus back on the control panels which are totally unacceptable. There are times when I'm waiting minutes not seconds to login or for pages to display (Hanging while installing applications is another matter). Times when I have a client on the line and we're troubleshooting an issue important to them, it is both embarrassing and aggravating.

Are my performance expectations in err? I base them on common sense and experience. I have 5 PCs, run different browsers for testing and a couple dozen accounts I manage as a WH reseller. The older accounts are ridiculously slow (including my own site). I program custom dashboard applications in PHP/MYSQL with Javascript for clients. If any of them were as slow as WH's site manager I would be called on the carpet. It's inexplicable.

Here’s a suggestion. My clients are not technically savvy for the most part but would love to have access to simple functionality such as the ability to add new email/ftp accounts themselves and possible install an app or two. The amount of features and convoluted interface dissuades me from providing them direct access to the site manager (which means it requires my bandwidth). In the past, when I have given them access, they inevitably become overwhelmed. With that in mind, what might be an improvement would be to offer a very consumer-friendly control panel and hide most of the advanced features (Maybe allow resellers, et al, to customize this). This might be one way to help the overall performance. Just a thought.

wildjokerdesign
12-29-2006, 07:22 AM
I like your suggestion of a streamlined Site Manager artbuilders. There is the mini Site Manager that is available for user that get added to an account and I think that something like this would be advantages for the main user (especially for resellers). I have pretty much built my own versions for many clients. :)

Even I (long time supporter) have become very frustrated with using the Site Manager and you are right it is time to stop blaming the users computer or connection. I was not even able to access the Site Manger on a university computer that believe me was not slow. ;) I do agree that often it may be something on a persons local computer but having customer support say that to you is not a solution unless they can offer some guidance in how to remedy the solution. Along with that comment should go a suggestion of what settings or "things" can be looked at in order to remedy the problem.

Perhaps it is up to use as clients to help WH figure this out. Testing things from Utah where the servers sit is not going to get the job done. :) How can we give them feedback about our situation and set up that would give the information needed to get this taken care of. From my end it often looks as if my browser is simply waiting for a reply from their server and not getting it. I often end up timing out on the session.

WestHost - BChambers
12-29-2006, 02:51 PM
Artbuilders and Wildjoker,

As has been discussed in our forums, we are very much aware of areas where we can improve performance. Your feedback is valuable as we use it to decide how we can best improve our services.

In regard to blaming users, our intent is not to say that all our users and their PC's or internet connections are to blame. There are however a substantial amount of support requests come through where a clients PC and/or internet connection negatively affect their performance. Despite this fact, as we evaluate the bigger picture we realize the need to continually improve our systems. We are committed to this, I can assure you.

We welcome your continued feedback and suggestions. If there are support issues that arise with your individual accounts, please do not hesitate to contact our support department. We are here 24x7 to help you.

jalal
12-29-2006, 03:32 PM
Perhaps it is up to use as clients to help WH figure this out. Testing things from Utah where the servers sit is not going to get the job done. :) How can we give them feedback about our situation and set up that would give the information needed to get this taken care of. From my end it often looks as if my browser is simply waiting for a reply from their server and not getting it. I often end up timing out on the session.

A useful tool for timing page loads is 'Lori' (Life of Request Info), which is a plugin for Firefox. It gives you the timing of initial start of load, page load time, kb's transferred and number of requests.

Just logging in to my Site Manager now gave me:
1.7secs to start
6.3secs to load
134kbs transferred
53 requests

Moving to the email tab gave:
1.4secs/8.5secs/168kb/86 requests

Westhost's home page gives:
1.5secs/5.7secs/97kb/46reqs

Utah.com
1.6secs/6.5secs/53kbs/43reqs

A simple page in California
0.8secs/2.7secs/11kb/21reqs

A blank page on the East Coast
0.6secs/1.5secs/2.3kbs/2reqs

It shows me that anywhere in the states seems to take a basis of 1.5secs. Note that the longest load time requires 86 separate requests and shortest 2 reqs.

HTH

wildjokerdesign
12-29-2006, 04:37 PM
Thanks for the tip jalal that well help!

I am seeing longer times with the plugin then you are even up to 43 secs to start. I'll keep a watch on things and see if I can figure out any type of pattern.

rolling
12-30-2006, 04:45 PM
Over 50.6k dial up I get

Login Page:
Start:3.796s
Complete:10.415s
Bytes:8.12 KB
Requests:8/8 (1256 B/s)

Site Details Page:
Start:12.898s
Complete:59.616s
Bytes:105.59 KB
Requests:40/41 (2314 B/s)

EMail Page:
Start:20.920s
Complete:46.667s
Bytes:191.59 KB
Requests:10/29 (7620 B/s)

Site Management Page:
Start:31.816s
Complete:47.949s
Bytes:133.17 KB
Requests:6/15 (8453 B/s)

Site Applications Page:
Start:4.346s
Complete:120.293s
Bytes:214.41 KB
Requests:23/42 (1894 B/s)

Domain Management Page:
Start:30.404s
Complete:52.546s
Bytes:158.10 KB
Requests:67 (7312 B/s)


Westhost.com:
Start:2.100s
Complete:31.400s
Bytes:67.84 KB
Requests:29/29 (2370 B/s)

forums.Westhost.com:
Start:2.844s
Complete:49.672s
Bytes:68.48 KB
Requests:42/43 (1497 B/s)

I calculated the bytes per second based on size and time from start to completion. Also, I am not sure why some show a total number of requests and others show x/y. Guess that must have something to do with retrieving data from cache.

Two minutes to refresh a page is unacceptable, which is why I use SSH and manual installs wherever practicable instead of using the site manager. I like getting my hands dirty so am not deterred easily, however I am sure that the Site Manager costs Westhost customers.

wildjokerdesign
12-30-2006, 08:34 PM
Over ISDN 128K

Login Page:
Start:0.594s
Complete:1.125s
Bytes:12.61 KB
Requests:7/8

Site Details Page:
Start:3.172s
Complete:5.406s
Bytes:144.65 KB
Requests:32/33

EMail Page:
Start:3.000s
Complete:4.281s
Bytes:181.52 KB
Requests:7/22

Site Management Page:
Start:20.109s
Complete:21.93s
Bytes:134.03 KB
Requests:3/18

Site Applications Page:
Start:0.500s
Complete:34.969s
Bytes:188.81 KB
Requests:19/34

Domain Management Page:
Start:1.875s
Complete:3.110s
Bytes:148.22 KB
Requests:4/19


Westhost.com:
Start:0.360s
Complete:2.375s
Bytes:97.39 KB
Requests:29/29

forums.Westhost.com:
Start:0.375s
Complete:5.31s
Bytes:50.67 KB
Requests:39/40

That was right now but at other times of the day it changes. Both start and complete have jumped to what you are seeing on dial up.

PhonemeAnalysis
01-02-2007, 05:40 PM
hi all -

i WAS having an interesting issue with ssh i wanted to share. it seems after 2 minutes of inactivity it would kick me off. sometimes it would kick me off after a mere 5 seconds of inactivity.

this situation combined with that annoying ssh 'freeze' issue was too much!

however, the good guys at westhost had me upgrade from puTTY 0.54 to 0.56

problem solved!

thirdroad
02-25-2007, 03:50 PM
I was very discouraged about the speed of the site manager too. But a few days ago I updated my Java to the latest version:

Version 1.5.0 (build 1.5.0_11-b03)

I didn't make a connection until I started reading this post. But, the next time I logged in to my site manager, it was waaay faster. Like I said, I didn't connect the two, but in retrospect, since I updated my Java, the site manager has been seriously faster. I may still have to wait a few seconds between pages, but nowhere near like before. I have used site manager several times since the Java update, and there is no comparison to the speed from before.

I assumed it was something that had changed on WH's end, but after reading this post, I am convinced that the updated Java made the difference in speed.

For anyone who wants to try it on Windows, go into your control panel, double click Java and you will be taken to the Java Control Panel. Click the "update" tab, then click "update now" down in the bottom right.

This is on XP, other Windows versions might be different?