On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Dmitri Pal <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes. HW clock is GMT and localtime is Pacific Daylight Time and it is
accurate to the minute.


Freeipa-users mailing list

Reply via email to