190
Replies
Ansury wrote:
Meanwhile, every forum designed on planet Earth runs fine on workstations made in 1995...
The Jive software speed doesn't seem to be any different for me than the FuseTalk software that was in place before Jive was implemented.
Perhaps I'm just lucky? I also don't seem to get logged out unexpectedly and frequently.
Cheers... Rick 
Captiv8r wrote:
The Jive software speed doesn't seem to be any different for me than the FuseTalk software that was in place before Jive was implemented.
Perhaps I'm just lucky? I also don't seem to get logged out unexpectedly and frequently.
Cheers... Rick
Rick, you *are* just lucky! I get logged out regularly, from all three of my computers. The forum *is* slower than any other forum I visit. As I indicated, the experience is better with this new computer (dual core with 4GB of ram), but even with all that, it is still noticibly slower in page loading. The reply box works better now than it did with the old system. Bottom line, most computer users are not going to want to get new systems and allow for their broswer cache to be some relatively large number in order to view this forum, when that sort of thing is not needed for any other forum they visit.
greenjumpyone wrote:
Dang Jochem. I have to install 2 plugins and take a total of 16 steps to give you the performance information? Don't you think that's a LOT to ask the general users of a forum to do?
Yes, it is a lot. But the easy stuff is more or less done. What is left in terms of performance drags is basically the following caegories:
- download times
- javascript runtime
- render times
The decisive factor in download times is caching. A normal request for the thread list in a forum should cost about 1.5 seconds. Anything request other then the HTML should be cacheable. Javascript runtime is pretty much outside our control (all we can do is disable widgets), but should be about 2 seconds for a thread list in a forum. Then we have render time which may partially be fixed by us (somebody PM'd me last week to say I needed to add explicit sizes to the images in the announcement area) and part not by us for main items like a thread list.
But let's look a little bit closer at the caching. If you have your cache configured correctly and you visit http://forums.adobe.com/community/general/forum_comments for the first time the loading pattern should look something like the image below:
Notice how it is just 500KB. Then you click a thread to read it. Then you go back to the forum by clicking the "Forum comments" link in the breadcrumb trail. Now your load of the Forum Comments thread list should look something like:
Now there is still one thing wrong here. That one image should be cacheable and is not due to a cache header misconfiguration. So that got escalated to Adobe last week and I expect to hear back from them sometime this week. After that a revisit should only generate one HTTP request which should be answered in about 1.5 seconds by the server.
Oh and for the record, I do have my broswer cache set to 10mb ... I don't wish to have a lot of temp files. For a forum to rely heavily on the broswer cache for speed is a dangerous and non-forward thinking design flaw. You simply can't, and should not, expect that all users are going to have large broswer cache setups.
But it isn't about cache size, it is about revalidation and invalidation algorithms Please note I am writing revisit and not reload. If you press F5 and/or Ctrl-r in your browser you force your browser to re-validate its cached content and you are back at image number 1 with 100+ HTTP requests. To get effective caching for these forums 10 MB should be more then enough.
And the difference between reload and revisit should also make it clear why we need such detailed information: it makes a difference. A few seconds for me, probably a lot more for somebody who doesn't have fibre at home.
BTW: these images were generated by me and I run a Firefox configuration that is very much non standard (for instance, I block stats.adobe.com so it doesn't show up at all). I am guessing the basic numbers for a Firefox with a standard configuration should be 120+ HTTP requests for a first visit ever, 90+ for a reload using F5 and/or Ctrl-r and about 5 for a fully cached situation.
AdChoices