[Locked] Forum Speed

[Jim_Simon]

I'm curious what kind of speed folks are getting with these new forums.  For my own experience, they're drastically slower than the older forums.

Using Firefox 3 and 3.5b4, I get page load times of around 20 seconds on average for a page to fully load.  IE8 is slower still.  This is on a 768 DSL connection.

Using the new Chrome browser, I get a more acceptable 2 second page load time on average.  (Which clearly shows there's nothing wrong with my connection.)

That is a VAST difference.  With other web sites, Chrome and Firefox display pages in very similar time frames.  It's only with these forums that Firefox is slowed to a crawl.  I wonder if any forum techies can chime in with theories as to why?

[Mark_A__Boyd]

I seem to recall that during the preview phase, everybody in Australia was experiencing slow connections. I don't know if that is still true, though. If you think the connection might be a cause, perhaps some traceroutes and ping times might help. Or pathping if on Windows.

I have a sneaking suspicion that some folks with the speed issues are not having connection problems, but various browsers on various configurations seem to execute the JavaScript at very different speeds. I haven't done much in the way of comparing browsers for speed here.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

greenjumpyone wrote:

PjonesCET wrote:

for myself It averages two to three seconds and like I said I am a 1mb DSl line.

There must be a bottleneck between your connection and the adobe or Jive's connection.

Phillip,

I must say, that is annoying!  Why do you think it's my connection?  I am not the only one with these types of speed issues, nor do I only use one type of connection or computer.  I have used 3 different computers (2 desktops, 1 laptop), one T1 connection from work, 1 FiOS connection from home and one wireless connection.  All 3 have the same speed issues.  All three have the slow backspace response in the reply window.  I seriously doubt that it's only my system causing this problem!!

What times you are averaging is good for you.  But your experience is not what many others are experiencing and I really don't appreciate the implication that if you have a good connection, then the rest of us should too!  It's not all about you, you know?

Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but those sorts of dismissive statements just irk me!

Notice above I said ...bottle neck between your connection and Adobe or Jive's connection. I didn't say at your end. There is a whole lot or earth/air space and wires to go through.

you might have T1, T5, FOIS, DSL, Cable.  at your point. but that only so far when the connection is handed off to another leg It might end up being a 56k pots line. You don't have one continous un broken string from your FOIS line to Adobe/Jive It just doesn't work that way.

[Guest]

Phillip,

I do understand how it works, but I was just pointing out that I have this issue with different computers and different connections.  As do other folks.

[Claudio_González1]

PjonesCET wrote:

you might have T1, T5, FOIS, DSL, Cable.  at your point. but that only so far when the connection is handed off to another leg It might end up being a 56k pots line. You don't have one continous un broken string from your FOIS line to Adobe/Jive It just doesn't work that way.

This is copied and pasted from a message I posted over a month ago in the old "Slow, slow, slow" thread (don't understand why we needed this new one):

In the old forums, with the same equipment and connections, any page finished loading in well less than one second here; I would even venture to judge download times for the forum pages in less than half a second. In Papudo I naturally had longer download times, but they were of about 1 second at most. I couldn't appreciate any difference in download times between Mac and Vista, in either location.

In the new forums, here in Santiago, my fastest download for forum pages has been of 10 seconds.

(emphasis added now). (Santiago is where I live, and I have a 10 Mbps cable connection; Papudo is another town, where I use a 1 Mbps DSL connection). The incredibly much longer download times affect only these forums, and only since the first trial day. So the problem is most definitely not with my connections.

And I don't see why I should change any of the browsers I use just because these forums were ruined.  

[Guest]

Nobody should have to change browsers (like I was forced to do) to use Jive Crapspace.

What I don't fully understand is, assuming we're talking about the same (or even newer) servers, if it's just slow Adobe servers causing the problem--why was WebX still so much faster?  Is there really that much more going across the wires now?  If so, that's Jive's fault, not Adobe.  It's Jive's reponsibility to design software that is versatile enough to work well in a multitude of different environments with minimal changes.  Either that's not the case or it's performance is just not up to par.

And anyway, it can't just be a network problem. When I switched browsers I went from a load time of (20 seconds-never) to (1-2 seconds).  Network what?

[Chris Cox]

Sigh. I also identified some problems with unseen graphics files, oversized graphics, and possibly some bad dependencies in certain javascripts.

They really are working on the forum performance.  But there are a few hundred small issues to investigate, and they all take time to resolve, then test, then deploy.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

If its using any Javascript maybe they ought to use DreamWeaver to clean up the code.

Heck DreamWeaver has a menus choice  to clean up code according the current standards used at the time the DreamWeaver version was published.

[Guest]

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

adobe-admin wrote:

Speed is still a big issue and is being worked on.

Thank you, John.  It's most comforting to know this is being looked into.  Can't aske for more.

adobe-admin wrote:

I can't put all the blame on Jive. A lot of the content on the forum pages comes from Adobe.

Yup.  The browser is usually waiting for stuff fro Adobe severs.

[Jochem van Dieten]

adobe-admin wrote on 2009-06-03 03:45:

Speed is still a big issue and is being worked on. I can't put all the blame on Jive. A lot of the content on the forum pages comes from Adobe. In the Web Crossing forums we did not have, for example, the current header and footer. Instead we had an image map GIF file that looked like an older version of the header and footer. I can't get away with doing that anymore. So not only are the Jive pages a bit heavier, the overall pages including items from Jive and Adobe are heavier.

If you analyze the current behavior you will see that the caching is

pretty much optimized. On a normal request everything but the HTML and

the avatars comes from the browser cache. If you want to optimize

further, it is time for the hard choices such as removing the "More like

this" widget or the avatars. (Yes, I know the widget is loaded

asynchronously, but even then it will execute on the one Javascript

thread of a browser.)

The forum session timeouts/cookie issue is also a shared thing between Adobe and Jive. I think I've figured out one of the issues there, but it is going to require changes on both sides. There is an adobe.com cookie that is supposed to expire when the browser closes, but it appears to be living on for 24 hours.

I posted that 3 weeks ago: http://forums.adobe.com/message/1965144#1965144

It is not very confidence inspiring if that has not yet been ruled out

or confirmed.

Jochem

--

Jochem van Dieten

http://jochem.vandieten.net/

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Ansury wrote:

Opera doesn't need a million plugins, it's faster than FF with more (and better from what I've seen) features by default.  If Firefox tried to do as much as Opera (just as fast), it would just say "EPIC FAIL" on load.    OSS built by people living in their parents basements has a harder time competing with the highest quality professionally developed software!

Anyway, Chrome/Opera are a heck of a lot faster on these forums, without weird settings needed, it's true. These forums simply will not work in crappy IE here, it is that slow. You would think Jive would bother testing that. With Chrome, it's actually pretty quick (often <1 second honestly). Too bad Chrome = I dunno, prob 1% of Intarweb usars?  Jive Clearspace = epic fail.

Chrome doesn't even have a test model for Mac , although they say one is coming. If Mac users saw and used it that would bring numbers up.

I have the mac version of opera and I don't see it loads anything any better than SeaMonkey/FireFox.

I have:

Safari

SeaMonkey

FireFox

OmniWeb

iCab

and I find they all load about the same. This is on a G4-1.67gb PowerBook 17" with 2 gb RAM and 120gb hard drive.

[S_D_A_]

Opera doesn't need a million plugins, it's faster than FF with more (and better from what I've seen) features by default.  If Firefox tried to do as much as Opera (just as fast), it would just say "EPIC FAIL" on load.    OSS built by people living in their parents basements has a harder time competing with the highest quality professionally developed software!

Anyway, Chrome/Opera are a heck of a lot faster on these forums, without weird settings needed, it's true. These forums simply will not work in crappy IE here, it is that slow. You would think Jive would bother testing that. With Chrome, it's actually pretty quick (often <1 second honestly). Too bad Chrome = I dunno, prob 1% of Intarweb usars?  Jive Clearspace = epic fail.

You sure don't know much about OSS software development. You do realize that Google Chrome is based on Chromium which is Open Source and that WebKit used in Safari is OpenSource ? Sure in any software project there will be "Interns" working. Redmond, Cupertino or even Adobe are no different

Heck even GIMP is OSS, and it's not that shabby.

In terms of quality I would take a large OSS application over a proprietary one any day. I like/trust the "more eyes" concept, and MANY OSS programmers are very good in their respective disciplines, just like many programmers working on proprietary code,because you know what ? Often they are one and the same.

[Kath-H]

Could always drown that 'silver swimmer' since we can't see her anyway

Thanks, John.

[Guest]

S.D.A. wrote:

You sure don't know much about OSS software development. You do realize that Google Chrome is based on Chromium which is Open Source and that WebKit used in Safari is OpenSource ? Sure in any software project there will be "Interns" working. Redmond, Cupertino or even Adobe are no different

Heck even GIMP is OSS, and it's not that shabby.

In terms of quality I would take a large OSS application over a proprietary one any day. I like/trust the "more eyes" concept, and MANY OSS programmers are very good in their respective disciplines, just like many programmers working on proprietary code,because you know what ? Often they are one and the same.

I don't think all OSS sucks, of course it doesn't. I disagree with the knee-jerk reaction many people have, thinking OSS is always preferable and better.

But I wouldn't use GIMP as an example of good OSS-- that UI that thing has is complete rubbish.  Were it not, Adobe Photoshop wouldn't be so well known anymore.  There's something to be said for professionally designed commercial software, where someone's living depends on it's high quality, and where the sellers are accountable to it's users.  More motivation (and money) does make a difference.  "You get what you pay for" is still for the most part true.  I don't mean to say OSS is all crap, I use it sometimes too, but it's not the holy grail the Linux geeks think it is.

Anyway, I didn't mean to change the subject...

[Guest]

Oh yeah, one more thing-- OSS usually starts off good, like Google Chrome.  And then as more and more idiots add useless junk to it, it becomes a cluttered clusterJive of bloatware crap.  Can't deny it!  Of course, this happens with more than just OSS, but it's even less restrained.

Anyway, I didn't mean to change the subject...

The forums are slow!

(But also, I wonder why the edit/update I made to the above post did not save, even though I clicked update? Hmm)

[S_D_A_]

Ansury wrote:

S.D.A. wrote:

You sure don't know much about OSS software development. You do realize that Google Chrome is based on Chromium which is Open Source and that WebKit used in Safari is OpenSource ? Sure in any software project there will be "Interns" working. Redmond, Cupertino or even Adobe are no different

Heck even GIMP is OSS, and it's not that shabby.

In terms of quality I would take a large OSS application over a proprietary one any day. I like/trust the "more eyes" concept, and MANY OSS programmers are very good in their respective disciplines, just like many programmers working on proprietary code,because you know what ? Often they are one and the same.

I don't think all OSS sucks, of course it doesn't. I disagree with the knee-jerk reaction many people have, thinking OSS is always preferable and better.

It's not a knee jerk reaction saying OSS is often better, if one know the issues -- You're the one guilty of the "knee jerk" reaction. You've heard or read something and taken it as your own without kowing the subject intimately enough to form an unbiased opinion.

But I wouldn't use GIMP as an example of good OSS-- that UI that thing has is complete rubbish.  Were it not, Adobe Photoshop wouldn't be so well known anymore.  There's something to be said for professionally designed commercial software, where someone's living depends on it's high quality, and where the sellers are accountable to it's users.  More motivation (and money) does make a difference.  "You get what you pay for" is still for the most part true.  I don't mean to say OSS is all crap, I use it sometimes too, but it's not the holy grail the Linux geeks think it is.

Anyway, I didn't mean to change the subject...

Who gives a shite about the UI (I wouldn't say Adobe's are much better though, it's just what one gets used to) -- I'm a programmer I know the command line is far more powerful.

The GIMP is a good application and did video a long time before Photoshop. Many OSS applications are best of breed and far better than closed source. You don't get it because you don't kow what you're talking about. Commercial sotware is under time constrants where the release cycle is determined by marketing not engineering. Therefore quality takes a back seat to release cycle. OSS doesn't have those constraints and is usually released when it's cooked not for marketing reasons. Much OSS developement is a labour of love and most of the programmers/engineering teams doing it especially GNU stuff work for commercial vendors -- Heck even some commercial vendors PAY programmers to work on OSS. So "free" doesn't necessarily mean cheap; au contraire my friend.

I wanted to disavow you of the notion you seem to have that the majority of OSS development is done by kids in the bedrooms and not professionals. That is false. Sure if you look on Freshmeat you'll find a lot of stuff done for thesis or degrees and then not developed further but there are many projects that are quite the opposite. Man how to you think Apple got MacOS X and Safari out the door so quickly ? It was because they were able to use OSS as the foundation !!

[Guest]

I know all that.  I work in the industry too you know.  It's a mixed bag, that's all--you just don't want to admit it. If OSS was so much better than commercial software, obviously all those companies including maybe Adobe would be out of business now. The proof of what I'm saying is demonstrated by the reality of the market. Who cares that the UI sucks and Gimp isn't usable? (Users, that's who. Let the market be the judge.)

Let's not hijack the thread with this. "Fine, you win" if that's what it takes.  Last thing we need is for another forum slowness thread to get locked.. so let's just give it a rest.  Kinda sorry I even brought the topic up.

[Guest]

SDA, thanks for the blanket and un-counterable insults.

Since you're such an expert, why not point out specifics?  You're just looking for a fight.

[Guest]

If OSS was so much better than commercial software, obviously all those companies including maybe Adobe would be out of business now.

tick tock tick tock...

[Guest]

dave milbut wrote:

If OSS was so much better than commercial software, obviously all those companies including maybe Adobe would be out of business now.

tick tock tick tock...

I understand your point (I can take a hint, unlike some others who can't even spot exaggeration or sarcasm, and then make assumptions..), but it hasn't yet reached that point.  Perhaps it will some day, but it's anyone's guess as of now.

[Guest]

my guess is that unless things change at adobe SOON we're witnessing the beginning of the downfall of a once great software company. how long can it take?

no it's not exaggeration. no it's not about the forums (although this is an example of some of the worst symptoms). it's about how you treat the customer and how you run a business - protecting your brand and products for example, not diluting them.

ex:

Photoshop
Photoshop Elements
Photoshop Album Starter Edition
Photoshop Lightroom

what's next? Photoshop Barbie Tea Set?

<sigh>

[Guest]

Oh, I don't disagree.  Don't forget I only said OSS has a disadvantage compared to commercial software (I feel the lack of dedicated core developers is a significant drawback), but I won't deny that OSS can overthrow software developed by a commercial company.

I admit that I have a hard time thinking of good examples of commercial software being "wiped out" by OSS, but I don't doubt that it could ever happen. Perhaps Adobe will be one of the first victims...

[Guest]

sorry, i didn't mean to imply that the gimp will overthrow photoshop any time soon, but SOMEONE could, OSS or otherwise. adobe's attitude shift towards it's customers almost guarantees that without some kind of change.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Ansury wrote on 2009-06-04 22:49:

I admit that I have a hard time thinking of good examples of commercial software being "wiped out" by OSS

SSH has been wiped out by OpenSSH: http://www.openssh.com/usage/graphs.html

Jochem

--

Jochem van Dieten

http://jochem.vandieten.net/

[Guest]

jochemd wrote:

Ansury wrote on 2009-06-04 22:49:

I admit that I have a hard time thinking of good examples of commercial software being "wiped out" by OSS

SSH has been wiped out by OpenSSH: http://www.openssh.com/usage/graphs.html

Jochem

--

Jochem van Dieten

http://jochem.vandieten.net/

But that was a protocol, not a for-sale commercial application (are you talking about a client or something?). I'm speaking more of commercial software, but I don't doubt it may have happened.