Re: [Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:47:21AM +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > You should also look at increasing the ZEO cache size if you use ZEO. > This can be done in zope.conf as well. The ZEO cache is a disk cache. +9 on that. This is the cache-size setting *within* the section. Fetching an object from ZEO over the network can be MUCH slower than fetching the object from a local FileStorage, depending on the network of course, but even on localhost ZEO has some overhead that can be significant -- especially for loading Images and Files. If instead the object is in the ZEO cache, no network request is made and the speed is basically equivalent to FileStorage. So, if you have a lot of objects that are read more often than they are written, a big ZEO client cache can be very helpful. It's still 20 MB by default IIRC, which is probably too small for most "real" storage sizes. The clue that you need to bump it up is in your event.log. See how often there are lines like: 2006-01-25T10:30:59 INFO(0) ZEC:1-None-0 flipping cache files. new current = 0 AFAIK, that means you've used up half of the specified cache size since the previous time such a message appeared. There's no hard fast rule about how often you should want to see a cache flip. If you see this once a week, you're fine but you could get away with a smaller cache if you care about the wasted disk space. If you see it every five minutes, you have a too small disk cache. Somewhere in between is good ;-) I prefer to err on the side of making it huge, and stop worrying about it. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:11:04 -0800, Dario Lopez-Kästen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Start by checking the ZODB cache numbers in the zope-conf file (too start simple). IIRC, the default is 5000 objects. Increase that to, say 50.000 or so (you mention that you have a busy site). Sorry, but this is not good advice. 5000 objects in the cache is normally plenty, and you should look into caching the front-end before you even consider this. 50K objects in the cache will eat *a lot* of memory, and most likely cause swapping. Not necessarily bad advice... if you have enough memory to hold the complete zcatalog you will notice significant search time improvements and if your site does a lot of zcatalog searches this can be a significant improvement. We are currently running a zcatalog with over 1 million objects and the catalog and indexes are in excess of 6Gb in size; the more memory the better the search performance. Front end caching is only good if you are serving up 'static' pages. Pages that are dynamically created, for each user/request, are not a good use case for front end caching (the exception is if there are portions of the pages, such a images, etc, which are common across your dynamically created pages, which will then make use of front end caching). Jonathan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
On 25 Jan 2006, at 11:36, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote: Start by checking the ZODB cache numbers in the zope-conf file (too start simple). IIRC, the default is 5000 objects. Increase that to, say 50.000 or so (you mention that you have a busy site). Sorry, but this is not good advice. 5000 objects in the cache is normally plenty, and you should look into caching the front-end before you even consider this. 50K objects in the cache will eat *a lot* of memory, and most likely cause swapping. Cache properly with Apache or Squid in front first, then investigate the more complex settings. Does this apply for personanlsied content as well? Remember, his site is an intranet. We at least, have had good results by increasing the internal ZODB caching. I fail to see how squid could help us with a site that is mostly non-static. It would be nicer of course if we could use some other kind of caching, so I am always open to suggestions :-) Increasing the ZODB cache is a good thing, you just need to keep RAM usage in check. The bigger the cache, the more RAM you use. Swapping would quickly annihilate any advantages you gain by having the cache. You should also look at increasing the ZEO cache size if you use ZEO. This can be done in zope.conf as well. The ZEO cache is a disk cache. jens ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
Subject: Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues! Alexander Limi wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:11:04 -0800, Dario Lopez-Kästen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Start by checking the ZODB cache numbers in the zope-conf file (too start simple). IIRC, the default is 5000 objects. Increase that to, say 50.000 or so (you mention that you have a busy site). Sorry, but this is not good advice. 5000 objects in the cache is normally plenty, and you should look into caching the front-end before you even consider this. 50K objects in the cache will eat *a lot* of memory, and most likely cause swapping. Cache properly with Apache or Squid in front first, then investigate the more complex settings. Does this apply for personanlsied content as well? Remember, his site is an intranet. We at least, have had good results by increasing the internal ZODB caching. I fail to see how squid could help us with a site that is mostly non-static. It would be nicer of course if we could use some other kind of caching, so I am always open to suggestions :-) /dario -- -- --- Dario Lopez-Kästen, IT Systems & Services Chalmers University of Tech. Lyrics applied to programming & application design: "emancipate yourself from mental slavery" - redemption song, b. marley ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
On 25 Jan 2006, at 10:42, Alexander Limi wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:11:04 -0800, Dario Lopez-Kästen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Start by checking the ZODB cache numbers in the zope-conf file (too start simple). IIRC, the default is 5000 objects. Increase that to, say 50.000 or so (you mention that you have a busy site). Sorry, but this is not good advice. 5000 objects in the cache is normally plenty, and you should look into caching the front-end before you even consider this. 50K objects in the cache will eat *a lot* of memory, and most likely cause swapping. Cache properly with Apache or Squid in front first, then investigate the more complex settings. Yes, just saying "change the setting to X" is definitely not good advice. But when it comes to twiddling knobs I would work from the bottom up instead of the other way around, meaning optimize the settings you have in Zope first. Even if you know you will use a cache you will want to make sure the backend is tuned properly. jens ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:11:04 -0800, Dario Lopez-Kästen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Start by checking the ZODB cache numbers in the zope-conf file (too start simple). IIRC, the default is 5000 objects. Increase that to, say 50.000 or so (you mention that you have a busy site). Sorry, but this is not good advice. 5000 objects in the cache is normally plenty, and you should look into caching the front-end before you even consider this. 50K objects in the cache will eat *a lot* of memory, and most likely cause swapping. Cache properly with Apache or Squid in front first, then investigate the more complex settings. -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
Chris Withers wrote: Me? I couldn't _possibly_ comment ;-) Mr. Chris "FU" Withers, you might very will think so. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
On 24 Jan 2006, at 20:36, Alexander Limi wrote: Check out CacheFu and it's accompanying tutorial. http://plone.org/products/cachefu http://plone.org/products/cachefu/documentation/how-to/crash-course CacheFu is being used on plone.org at the moment. Neither Zope nor Plone are proper delivery systems, and if you want performance, you should read up on caching. Zope by itself can be a very capable delivery system. Not sure what you're talking about. It's all about the application you put on top of Zope. jens ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope vs Plone: performance issues!
Check out CacheFu and it's accompanying tutorial. http://plone.org/products/cachefu http://plone.org/products/cachefu/documentation/how-to/crash-course CacheFu is being used on plone.org at the moment. Neither Zope nor Plone are proper delivery systems, and if you want performance, you should read up on caching. -- Alexander Limi On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:08:44 -0800, Hugo Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, I'm responsible for a big corporate intranet and corporate portal. They were using Zope/Plone before I got here and the problems are too many. Let's talk about performance issues... Plone is VERY SLOW responding requests. All content is stored in ZODB objects and zcatalog is used to search. But even if you request the intranet home only, it takes about 10 seconds to load. The hardware is very good and lots of ram is used in the servers. They also have zeo + 2 zope instances running in the same machine. I've never seen this in my life... only 3 machines running 2 zope instances + zeo instance, separately. Do you think Zope(logic)+MySQL(content)+Apache(HTTP server) is better solution than Zope+Plone ??? TIA -- Hugo Ramos - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Zope consultant ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
