Have you tried changing your IE cache settings to never check for updates instead of "automatically" or "every time"? Worth a try as a test to see if it has an effect.
On Jan 31, 2008 5:42 AM, caped crusader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions everyone. > > Our pages are very simple, very few images, very little javascript, and > we're not using any extra javascript libraries. > > There is nothing obviously different in the server logs in terms of the > files being fetched. I'm going to try the suggestions here and see if what > turns up. > > The puzzling aspect is the very large difference in time (by a factor of > 4) between IE and Firefox. This makes me wonder is there a difference in how > IE is handling either caching or if it is waiting for everything in the page > to load before rendering it to the screen, whereas FF is perhaps rendering > the page, but allowing non-visible elements to download in the background. > Mind you, in FF, the browser progress bar, which presumably the download > status of all elements on the page, completes in 6-7 seconds, compared to > the 23 or so of IE. > > JM > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 8:46 AM, David Delbecq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Using ctrl-I on firefox , in the medias tab you will get an idea what is > > loaded by pages. If you see tons of javascript, css and picture, that > > might be the source of your problem. Note that we had a similar problem > > here once, JSF was slow to render (same time for IE / firefox), we > > discovered we had a filter in our config that was, for database > > transaction reasons, limiting request to one request at a time per > > session (use of synchronized block on user session). As a result, all > > queries for JS/CSS/pictures coming from JSF component where queued and > > serve one at a time instead of in parallel. > > > > Even complex JSF pages shouldn't take 23 seconds to be returned to > > client. Also note that complex css layout can sometimes takes time to > > get rendered client side, but 23 seconds.... ? Even 6 seconds is far too > > much for average users :) > > > > > > En l'instant précis du 31/01/08 09:15, Christopher Cudennec s'exprimait > > en ces termes: > > > You should try a tool like ProxySniffer or a plugin for FF or IE to > > > see why your page performance is that bad. We had some problems in our > > > project concerning included css and js-files. You should be able to > > > see who's "responsible". > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > Martin Marinschek schrieb: > > >> Are you using any javascript libraries? Dojo? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> > > >> Martin > > >> > > >> On 1/30/08, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> ---- caped crusader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a JSF application with some quite unusual performance > > problems. > > >>>> Loading pages in IE7 takes 4 times as long as in Firefox (v2.0.0.11 > > ). > > >>>> > > >>>> When I test the application locally, response times are good, and > > >>>> pretty > > >>>> similar for IE and FF. When I test our actual deployment, pages > > >>>> take on > > >>>> average 6 seconds to load in Firefox, and about 23 seconds in IE7. > > The > > >>>> > > >>> pages > > >>> > > >>>> that are being rendered are very simple, with perhaps 10-12 links > > >>>> and a > > >>>> handful of form fields. Much as I'd love to tell our users to just > > >>>> use FF, > > >>>> most of them use IE and making them switch is not an option. > > >>>> I've already looked at the performance page on the MyFaces wiki, > > and > > >>>> implemented the server-side tips there. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm using > > >>>> > > >>>> MyFaces 1.1.4 > > >>>> Tomahawk 1.1.3 > > >>>> Firefox 2.0.0.11 > > >>>> Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.11 > > >>>> > > >>>> Are there any other obvious areas anyone can think of to target? > > >>>> > > >>> One thing that comes to mind is that Firefox might be caching some > > >>> resources > > >>> while IE is not caching them, and so repeatedly fetching something. > > >>> This > > >>> difference might not show up when the server is local, but be much > > more > > >>> significant when the server is remote and more heavily loaded. > > >>> > > >>> I suggest you enable logging of all requests on your server and then > > >>> compare > > >>> the list of URLs fetched by firefox with the list of URLs fetched by > > >>> IE for > > >>> the same page. This can be done on your "local" server, not the > > >>> remote one. > > >>> > > >>> I would also enable the "live headers" plugin in firefox and have a > > >>> look at > > >>> the http headers for pages, making sure that they have the > > appropriate > > >>> caching headers set. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Simon > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > http://www.devlog.be (a belgian developer's logs) > > > > > > >
