Results for question #2:
I installed FireBug and setup the console to show logging. I then
brought up one of the reviews that has been a problem for us and
showed hundreds of HTTPS GET requests for diff comments, each taking
about ~200-300 milliseconds. It took ~6 minutes to fully load the
page.
I then set the $("review.body").hide() and refreshed the page, and it
still took almost 3 minutes to load. The same HTTPS GET requests were
being displayed, but this time they only took ~90milliseconds and were
showing "304 Not Modified".
This is my first use of FireBug so please advise if you'd like more or
different information.
On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response. I'll be interested in seeing the results.
>
> I'm working on code now that should address these issues (though some
> further decisions will be made based on #2 and #3).
>
> Essentially, we're looking at expanding/collapsing reviews based on the
> following logic:
>
> For each review:
> If the user has a pending reply to this review, expand it.
> Else if the user has replied to the review, and there's no further
> activity on the review, collapse it.
> Else If the review is newer than the latest change description, AND it's
> the latest review from that user, expand it.
> Else if there's activity on the review since the latest change
> description and since the last time the user viewed the page, expand it.
> Else, collapse it.
>
> Users can of course manually expand a review.
>
> This should keep the number of visible reviews quite low. Hopefully it'll be
> the set of reviews that the user actually wants to see. The review contents
> won't be loaded in unless the user does expand the review, so the page
> should load a lot faster.
>
> This doesn't solve the issue of one single review with many hundreds of
> comments, but I'm hoping that's not a common case, and that would have to be
> solved differently.
>
> The the above logic seems broken to someone, please let me know!
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > answers inline below...
>
> > On Mar 6, 3:52 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> > > A couple more questions. I'm playing around with a couple possible fixes,
> > > but need to find out more where the bottleneck is. Clearly it's
> > > browser-side, but the question is whether it's the fact that there's a
> > lot
> > > in the DOM or whether the rendering is the slow part.
>
> > > 1) Is the page still slow once it fully loads?
>
> > Yes, the comment boxes that are used to write comments are slow even
> > after the page is fully loaded. It doesn't make sense to me, but this
> > is the behavior being seen by most everyone. (This is only the case
> > for reviews with many comments.)
>
> > In addition to this, some folks are also complaining that the page
> > cannot be used until the page is fully loaded - this has not been my
> > experience but I wanted to pass it along too.
>
> > Also, we are seeing these issues on reviews that have 10-20 different
> > file diffs. Now that I mention this I will try to repro with just one
> > file diff to see if that makes a difference or not.
>
> > And finally, the CPU gets pegged when these pages are loading.
>
> > > 2) Can you install the Firebug extension for Firefox and, in the console,
> > > type the following:
>
> > > $(".review .body").hide()
>
> > I will get back to you on this question.
>
> > > And see if the page is now faster to interact with? (All the reviews will
> > be
> > > hidden until you reload, so this is clearly not a fix by itself, but will
> > > tell us whether the bottleneck is the DOM or the rendering).
>
> > > 3) Are these comments spread across many reviews? Or does a single review
> > > usually have enough comments to cause problems by itself?
>
> > Yes, the comments are spread across many reviews.
> > I will try to reproduce using a single review to provide more insight
> > and get back to you.
>
> > > Christian
>
> > > --
> > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
> > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Thank-you for making this a priority! I'll keep an eye out for the fix
> > > > and grab immediately.
>
> > > > Breaking up the reviews into smaller pieces is not a use case that is
> > > > going down well here, but it is known. thanks again!
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 2:54 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> > > > > We'd have to decide what we're doing to fix this first. Depending on
> > what
> > > > > that is, it could take a few days to implement, or longer. We can
> > make it
> > > > a
> > > > > priority for beta 1 (the next release), and of course you'd be able
> > to
> > > > just
> > > > > upgrade to a nightly once it's in.
>
> > > > > Short-term, I'd just advise splitting up the changes more, if
> > possible.
> > > > > Having smaller things to review should mean fewer comments.
>
> > > > > Christian
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes, I mean comments not reviews.
>
> > > > > > I'm seeing the same issues on Alpha4 on my test server. It seems to
> > me
> > > > > > that the loading of the diff fragments across all the comments is
> > > > > > causing our problems - loading such a review sometimes crashes the
> > > > > > browser (i've seen this on firefox mostly) and in IE the page often
> > > > > > shows a script error popup box part way through the load.
>
> > > > > > Changing the page size would help us so much, can you give any
> > > > > > indication of a time frame for such a change?
>
> > > > > > We'd benefit from the other suggestions as well, but jsut getting
> > > > > > something workable for medium-to-large reviews is our immediate
> > > > > > concern.
>
> > > > > > Thanks!
>
> > > > > > On Mar 6, 2:39 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I think we should. The thing is that the newest review request is
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > bottom, so it's kinda weird.
>
> > > > > > > Another thing we should look into is auto-collapsing old reviews
> > > > (such as
> > > > > > > reviews made before the last update to the review request),
> > allowing
> > > > them
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > expand again. This would fetch the collapsed items from the
> > server
> > > > > > > dynamically.
>
> > > > > > > Scalability of the review request page is certainly something we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > tackle for 1.0.
>
> > > > > > > As far as using Alpha 2 vs. Alpha 4, if you use Alpha 4 the page
> > > > should
> > > > > > load
> > > > > > > pretty fast, with the diff fragments loading dynamically after.
> > Even
> > > > with
> > > > > > > 150+ comments (do you mean actual comments or reviews, btw?) it
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > take forever in alpha 4 to display those. Just might take a while
> > for
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > diff fragments ot finish loading across all comments.
>
> > > > > > > Christian
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > > > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > > > > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Trowbridge <
> > trowb...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Perhaps we need to paginate the reviews page in addition to the
> > > > diff?
>
> > > > > > > > -David
>
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. The slowness is:
> > > > > > > > > 1. page load takes several minutes (the more comments, the
> > longer
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > takes)
> > > > > > > > > 2. typing a comment is very slow on reviews with many
> > comments.
> > > > > > > > > 3. Scrolling on the review page is painful when many reviews
> > > > > > > > > Developers are speculating its due to a huge DOM and say that
> > > > > > > > > performance benchmarks seem relative to the document size,
> > > > > > complexity,
> > > > > > > > > and browser type (Safari works best, then FireFox, then IE.)
>
> > > > > > > > > Can we change the paging size the ReviewBoard uses? That
> > would
> > > > help
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > most likely.
>
> > > > > > > > > Further details:
> > > > > > > > > yes, we're using memcache. 4G ram.
>
> > > > > > > > > We've been running Alpha2 the past couple weeks. But it seems
> > > > > > Alpha1-4
> > > > > > > > > also have same issues.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 1:42 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> It's important to find out what's causing the slowdown. What
> > > > part is
> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > >> slow? The page itself, or the progressive diffs inside of
> > it?
> > > > Alpha
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > >> doesn't have progressive diffs so it will be slower than
> > alpha 4
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> regard.
>
> > > > > > > > >> We have some large review requests like this at VMware too,
> > and
> > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > seen
> > > > > > > > >> this slowdown.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Are you using memcached on the server?
>
> > > > > > > > >> How much ram do you have on the server?
>
> > > > > > > > >> Christian
>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > > > > > > >> Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > > > > > > > >> VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > I was able to roll back to Alpha1 but ReviewBoard
> > displayed
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > problem... an unresponsive/seriously slow GUI for reviews
> > with
> > > > > > 150+
> > > > > > > > >> > comments. I also upgrade to Alpha4 with the same results.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > Our company cannot use ReviewBoard with this serious
> > > > performance
> > > > > > > > >> > handicap.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > We've been very happy with ReviewBoard up until now. Is
> > anyone
> > > > > > looking
> > > > > > > > >> > into this perf issue?
>
> > > > > > > > >> > We're going to have to move back to using <cringe>
> > CodeStriker
> > > > > > soon if
> > > > > > > > >> > this isn't addressed.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
