Performance frontend / backend
I've downloaded the latest SF 4.1 SP2. I noticed that the frontend speed isn't quite okay. The website isn't much responsive, as I'm used to with SF 3.7.
Also, in the backend, the popups are taking a long time to load.
Just to let you know that it isn't hardware: I'm running my dev environment on a Macbook Pro with max. memory and a SSD disk.
SF 3.7 is fast as lightning!
Anyone else who has problems with this?
Well first of all SF needs a lot of RAM to run smoothly. 500 MB is what the specs say at the moment.
Telerik aims to make SF faster which each release.
I have one ticket open because on one site my front-end is about 30-50% slower with the latest 4.1 SP2 release compared to the 4.1 SP1 release. Unfortunately I have no feedback as to this is just the case with my site or if this is a real issue with the 4.1 SP2 release.
Well, I do consider rewriting my site back to 3.7, since the speed just isn't acceptable. Great that it will be faster with every release, but I suppose it will be with version 4.3 or something that the speed is like 3.7 again.
I also had the idea that SP1 and before were faster?
Hello Daniel Plomp and Markus,
There is a slight difference in the performance of the two service packs. We are currently setting up a robust performance testing environment that will allow us to demonstrate the performance of the system with each new release. We have already scheduled a lot of resources to speed up the performance and you might expect significant improvements with the Q2 release due in a month.
Until then please excuse us for the inconvenience, we will do our best to resolve all of your issues in a timely and consistent manner.
the Telerik team
Thanks for your feedback.
Am I the only one that thinks that:
There is a slight difference in the performance of the two service packs
Got to be a huge understatement?
If you look at this two demo pages
http://sitefinity.test-it-now.com (4.1 sp 2)
http://staging.sitefinity.test-it-now.com (4.1 sp 1)
Then on the initial page load you will notice that the SP2 takes about 30-50% longer then the SP1. Once chached they are equally fast. Backend SP2 might be super fast over SP1 but FrontEnd came at least in my testing to a much worse performance.
Your goal: Targeted 20% increase in the performance of Sitefinity backend and front end.
4.1 SP1 = 100 %
4.1 SP2 = 130 % (30% slower)
4.2 = 104 % (if you take the 20% of SP2) So no gain at all. One step front - two steps back.
I wish Telerik would have a policy that if they see a performance decrease in a morning build, they would fix it in the afternoon. And if they see one in a SP2 that seem (at least to me to be drastic) would have a hotfix for it!
At the moment I simply can not apply SP2 because the initial page load take about 1 second longer for each page making it feel like a crawl (SF is not yet known to be the fastest CMS around). Support was not yet able to tell me if something was wrong with my test pages so I assume the slightly difference in performance is simply a problem of my server.
Happy for anyone who feels like testing it themself.
Put a SP1 and SP2 on the same server (preverably real hosting) and test it yourself. I hope to be proven wrong.
Hi Markus Berchtold,
Georgi Chokov has answered your performance concerns in your support thread. Please let us know whether there is anything else we should consider for improvement for our Q2 release that is a showstopper for you.
All the best,
the Telerik team
for me we need Refine Multi-language support for Documents already references in PITS and a more mature version permission's management.
My first tests confirm that the next internal build will be much much much faster then the current SP2 1501 release on the front end side (did not really test back end)
For the Q2 release
a) make sure release it realy in the week of the 25th of July
b) make sure we don't have some last minutes suprises like with SP2
I would have hopped for an hotfix for SP2 but see that this is a lot of work. Looking forward to a faster, better 4.2.
Most improvements could be done in forms. I have a suggestion post with at least 10 that seem to make sense to more then me.
It would be nice if Telerik would finaly fix old old bugs.
For example if you layout a form and want to use pixel you are
a) still bound to the width that SF thinks a form should be
b) once you play around with the pixel width you end up strang.
To me the forms module should realy have the beta tag behind it. To me forms are simply not really usable for end user clients.
Integrate the mailing option from the marketplace.
I worry a a bit that since there is the forms Mailing control in the marketplace the priority of that feature (which everyone wants) has nose-dived to the bottom of the pile
...just a guess though.
We have a pits item for this with a very high priority and we will do our best to include it with one of our next major releases. Please excuse us for the inconvenience, we are doing our best to serve all customer request based on their priorities.
All the best,
the Telerik team
How about all the other request and bugs for forms?
Bug - use layout in forms with pixel is still a bad idea
Sugestions - http://www.sitefinity.com/devnet/forums/sitefinity-4-x/suggestions/forms-improvements.aspx
Like Steve I am longing for the function to have mail send when a form is submited (seems to be doable from what I see from marketplace) but working/layouting forms is still not in any way really possible for endusers.
Hello Markus Berchtold,
We are considering all feature requests and in this specific case Antoaneta has included them as UX tasks that should be resolved. However, we are currently streaming a lot of resources to improve some key performance bottlenecks in order to make Sitefinity even faster, and I cannot bind to a specific date on which your suggestions will be included.
Thank you for contacting us.
the Telerik team
Do you have any projections about the speed (performance) increases coming with Sitefinity 5.0 in relation to 4.3 or 4.4? Some percentages would be fine. I would be keen to know if we should plan an upgrade for our customer as they are complaining about the speed a bit.
I see you post about speed from time to time and really do not have to much trouble with it. Yes SF is not fast as lightning and there is lot of improvements that can be made.
However I would be interested to see a screencast of your sites acutall performance.
I noticed that also in the backend the first time you open it takes long as well as it takes really some time to load the first generic content edit module.
But after an initial load SF to me is quite ok. I was just wondering what it looks like on your side.
PS: Here is a screencast from a site running in the US on Arvixe VPS. I am accassing it from Switzerland and am using Chrome which of course is a HUGE difference to IE8 for example
I would consider the speed as fast and in no way bothering me. But then again I am working with small business sites with not much traffic.
Thanks for taking the time to ansnwer. Was that version 4.4 or 4.3? In your opinion, is 4.4 faster than 4.3?
Ok, here is a small extract from an email I have received 2 days ago from our customer...
The screencast was a 4.4 version.
But again switching from IE8 to Chrome for example is a way more noticable speed improvement then 4.3 to 4.4. Anyhow if something to 2 seconds and now is 10% faster its 1.8 seconds. I really dont feel these 0.2 seconds especially when you have customers uploading 100kb images displaying them at 200 x 100 pixel.
From your description
1) only one customer having a problem
2) not much users 10-20
3) Internal site
I would bet my tomorrows lunch that the problem is not SF but something else.
I assume you have used tools like fiddler2.com yslow and stuff to see what is really going on.
- What browser are they using
- Do they have 3MB picuters they display small
- how about the connection from the IIS to the SQL Server is there a problem
- Security issues
Do you have access to the servers? If yes I would open a ticket (maybe again) asking Telerik to think out of the box to help you find the bottle neck.
Again - to me that sure is not a regular SF problem but something with the setup.
By the way I have some very good friends in Switzerland. Hoping to visit that fine country of your at some point.
They are using IE9. We are a Microsoft Certified Partner and everything we deliver is Microsoft. I forgot to say that the other customers are not using the system as intensively as this one and they are using 3.7. No there are no images. The network is all good, there are no issues. It is a solid, brand new network. The network is isolated from internet. I have supervised access to the network only, and all the things I try require a wheelbarrow of paperwork. Not fun to keep updating it.
I think I will wait for 5.0, download it, and do my own performance tests on that given page. I think it is just that page with 15 Custom Content Blocks that is a bit slow when loading and publishing. Cant wait for the decoupling to happen as I think that will really make a big difference. Personally I don't mind having a hundred DLLs as long as they are on disk and not in memory.
When you are talking about Custom Content Blocks what are you talking about exactely.
Simply 15 content blocks with or are you talking about some custom controls?
I am talking about a custom control. I would send you a ZIP file of it, but the forum does not allow. I have had it checked by Telerik as well though.
If you hade a page with just 15 simple content blocks on it would the backend also be slow? If now then it would be the custom controls.
Testing by eliminating is often a good practice. Kind of try and error but works a lot of the times :-)
Yes Markus, its the backend that is slow. Front end is fine, in the backend when you open it in edit mode and publish it. all the other pages that are not loaded as much seem to be a bit faster. so it points to to this page and the fact that it has more controls on it. it seems to really slow it down when it comes to editing and publishing, if the page is quite busy
don't worry though, the only thing i wanted to know in the first place was whether advances in speed were still being made or not. thanks for your help.