On 07/18/2012 04:27 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Dmitri Pal <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/18/2012 03:45 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM, John Dennis <jden...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/18/2012 02:59 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Petr Vobornik <pvobo...@redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/17/2012 11:43 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>>>>>> 8><------
>>>>>>>>> I'm beginning to think this is just the Web UI itself instead of 389
>>>>>>>>> although it is really difficult to tell. I've poured over the debug
>>>>>>>>> logs and didn't see anything that caused me concern.
>>>>>>>>> It's certainly usable, but I just got really spoiled by the
>>>>>>>>> unbelievable quickness of 2.1.3. When your release notes indicate it
>>>>>>>>> should be faster, what are you comparing it to? Maybe this only
>>>>>>>>> happens with upgraded instances and not fresh installs.
>>>>>>>> It is always possible something didn't get upgraded properly but I've
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> 2.1.3 -> 2.2.0 upgrades and haven't seen this. When we say something is
>>>>>>>> faster we're always referring to the previous version (or versions).
>>>>>>> Maybe I was just lucky with 2.1.3. On a first load it might take some
>>>>>>> time to load the "frame" as I call it. But the data would load almost
>>>>>>> instantaneously from there (certainly no more than 1 s) as you moved
>>>>>>> from page to page. Here, even if I return to the same page, the system
>>>>>>> acts as if the data is begin fetched for the very first time as it is
>>>>>>> no faster than the first load. Maybe that is significant to the
>>>>>>> problem?
>>>>>> I think the culprit is Web UI paging capabilities introduced in 2.2. With
>>>>>> lot of users, responses might grow in size. You can check their size and
>>>>>> duration in browser developers tools. I suggest chrome/chromium - press
>>>>>> F12
>>>>>> and choose 'network' tab.
>>>>>> This new feature can't be disabled in configuration. To test if the
>>>>>> slowdown
>>>>>> is done by paging you can (at own risk) replace line
>>>>>> /usr/share/ipa/ui/facet.js:538
>>>>>> that.pagination = spec.pagination === undefined ? true : spec.pagination;
>>>>>> with:
>>>>>> that.pagination = false;
>>>>>> Note: It will break some other parts of the UI - so for testing only.
>>>>> I've made the substitution in the code (was line 507 for me-do I have
>>>>> a different version?). Looking at the time chart in Chrome I see that
>>>>> the bulk of the time is for /ipa/session waiting. Would "waiting" mean
>>>>> waiting for the directory server or memcached?
>>>> Actually neither, it means waiting for a response from the web server
>>>> (technically it's making an RPC call via HTTP Ajax). The RPC call needs to
>>>> go through the web server, memcached, and typically will invoke one or more
>>>> directory server queries, and run a bunch of Python to massage everything
>>>> before the RPC returns with the result.
>>>> It doesn't look like you've got much difference in times between with
>>>> pagination on and pagination off. I don't know the pagination code but I
>>>> suspect it's run after the RPC call returns so the RPC timing is not 
>>>> telling
>>>> us much with respect to that.
>>>> Waiting for up to 3 seconds for an RPC call does seem on the high side. Do
>>>> you have a lot of LDAP data?
>>> No. 49 users, 17 hosts, 25 services, 6 DNS zones, only 1 of which has
>>> any significant amount of hosts in it.
>>>> But really, unless we get timing results for each component we're grasping
>>>> at straws :-(
>>> Understood.
>>> Steve
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Freeipa-users mailing list
>>> Freeipa-users@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
>> Do you have a replica and does this replica behave the same?
> No replica yet. I wanted to get the memory leak issue solved first.
> All I have to compare to is the old 2.1.3 before. This one is much
> slower. I just can't seem to figure out what's wrong. The upgrade
> seemed to complete successfully and there were no errors in the log.
> The only things I've found thus far (earlier in this thread) are the
> unindexed entries (all hosts entries) that Rich seemed to think might
> be slowing things up. As the slowness is on every page, I wouldn't
> think that would be the problem.
> I wouldn't have said as much about this were it not for the promised
> faster speed mentioned in the release notes. It's comparable to the
> old 2.0 release candidates so I thought it might have been due to the
> complexity of the feature additions.
> Steve
Is the time correct on this system?

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-users mailing list

Reply via email to