Hi,
Thanks for the reply. To add more to my initial post, the pages I load
tested consist of 1 page with 3 containers (my main page),
and about 10 'static' pages generated from a CF template which contained no
CF/Spectra tags. Just plain HTML.
Without caching, the main page took 270ms to execute. The rest executed in
30ms or so. With 100 simultaneous users hitting
this (and other pages) on my test machine, response time grew to an average
of 20s. Which is unacceptable. With caching
turned on, average page response time dropped to 5s, pretty good, but I lose
the ability to do things like personalization.
The area in which I get minimal or no improvement whether caching was on is
in the CPU utlization. In both cases, CPU utilization
easily hit 100% when I load tested it with more than 25-30 users, while
response time was still below 10s. According to the detailed
view of the execution time in the debug info, the following took a
comparitively long time to complete.
50 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\COAPI\UTILS\CFA_HANDLER.CFM
40 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\TIER0\OBJECTSTORE\CFA_CONTENTOBJECTG
ETMULTIPLE.CFM
41 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\TIER0\OBJECTSTORE\CFA_CONTENTOBJECTI
NVOKEMETHOD.CFM
20 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\TIER0\OBJECTSTORE\_CONTENTOBJECTGETM
ULTIPLE_BP.CFM
20 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\TIER1\PUBLISHING\CFA_CONTAINER.CFM
20 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\TIER1\SITEMODELING\CFA_PAGE.CFM
20 ms C:\PROGRAM
FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\CUSTOMTAGS\SYSTEM\TIER1\UTILS\CFA_GLOBALSETTINGS.CFM
20 ms C:\PROGRAM FILES\ALLAIRE\SPECTRA\RULES\SYSTEM\SCHEDULECONTENT.CFM
Can the experts here let me in on some tips I can further optimize the
system? As of now, I only use default rule handlers, and my
display handlers do nothing more than display. No other handlers are called
when the pages are called. I hope to get the CPU utilization as low as
possible.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
CK Ng
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kym Kovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: (Extremely) Bad CF/Spectra Performance
> Hello,
>
> You are worried about performance of CF/Spectra. You state your machine
> specs etc., which is good, but don't give us an indication of what mix of
> CF and Spectra the site is composed of so may I take a liberty or two and
> ask a few questions and propose an answer or two that might not quite fit
> your scene, if so, apologies. May I also say that I wear two hats, the
> senior partner in both a Spectra development firm with several sites under
> our belt and/or in development and also senior partner in a specialist
> hosting firm that hosts nothing but CF and Spectra Sites. I say that to
> indicate a level of experience and knowledge :-)
>
> CF is in the same area as ASP in speed of serving, you can work out
special
> benchmarks that prove either to be faster but basically they are much the
> same. Spectra is a whole different ball game, you cannot compare Spectra
to
> ASP. Spectra is really a very fancy set of custom tags, written to be
> independent of almost everything in terms of platform and potential
> database engine. As such they are a very badly performing set of tags on
> any specific platform. They do things like storing all the data of an
> object type you design in a WDDX packet that then gets stored in the
> database. Great for portability and making the object design
> data-independent, disastrous in terms of performance.
>
> The result, Spectra runs like a dog.
>
> What you gain is an ability to design an extremely complex site with speed
> and accuracy and later on, versatility in maintaining the site. Spectra is
> for complex sites, the maintenance aspect is a very important one.
>
> So what do you do about it? Firstly get a fairly grunty machine as a base
> level machine for serving. All our Spectra servers are dual cpu machines,
> 512MB or 1GB RAM, UW2 SCSI, etc. That is barely enough. So secondly work
> out what mix of Spectra and CF you want to use. We use direct CF engines
> for query intensive areas of a site, such as a product catalogue, and keep
> Spectra in the background, managing it all. Thirdly cache _everything_.
You
> state that you get minimal performance improvement with caching, that
> indicates that something is wrong, fully caching a Spectra page should
give
> you better performance than even a CF page, we get either 20ms per page
> served or about 80ms depending on cache style etc., compared with 20 - 30
> secs for a fully dynamic page with 30 containers or so.
>
> Do you use security in your pages? SiteMinder is an embarrassment, we run
> our own home-brew security, like most other folks, as it is so
slowwwwwww...
>
> Is the performance problem across the whole site or just the back or front
> ends? Keep the front end as simple as possible, don't make the containers
> work too hard with fancy methods, etc. Put more smarts in the backend.
> Don't use the webtop, roll your own backend.
>
>
> I could rattle on for ever, tell us where things are slow and we, the List
> that is <g>, can advise.
>
>
> --
>
> Yours,
>
> Kym
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
