Sniff both transactions, compare, find correct solution and post it
here, am really curious to know where this comes from?
caped crusader a écrit :
Good idea. Tried it but it had no effect.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Andrew Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>> ---- caped crusader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[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 <http://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 <http://www.devlog.be/> (a belgian
developer's logs)
