3.0.2 is way slower than 2.3.5

[immortality]

I'm currently testing to upgrade my forum from 2.3.5 to 3.0.2 but I find this last version incredibly slow. Even in performance mode.

I'm not sure this is a bug in itself, but I wanted to know if I'm the only one or if this is a known issue.

I'm finding this board slow too, even...

Any chance to improve the performance for next releases? or any suggestions to do it ourselves in our board? I'm having second thoughts about upgrading from a board that works perfectly to a new version that may pose more problems...

Thanks!



EDIT: Lo-fi mode is faster, but still not as fast...

[bfarber]

This board works just fine for me. While we always look towards improving performance where-ever possible during upgrades, I don't think you're likely to see any magic bullets between minor point releases. The last few releases have improved performance quite a bit by identifying and working out many resource issues with memberlist and search, for instance.

[Luke]

I would check indexes to make sure they are all there, and do a quick repair on all tables to rebuild indexes. After that I would run an optimize.

If it still seems slow in some areas, you could try turning the sql debugger on and identify queries that are running slow on the slower loading pages.

[Immort]

bfarber: if i click a post in 2.3.5 it takes 0.5 seconds to load. If i click the 3.0.2 it takes 4 seconds (the SAME topic).
In this official forum, if i click on a topic or the reply box it takes around 4 seconds to load.

Luke: I'm quite lost in the new admin panel! Could you point where exactly is the optimizer?

Thanks :)


Edit: ill make it 4 seconds (counted, also in this forum). Anyway, I have no doubt you are striving for performance, but I wanted to know if you have this in mind and will try to fix it in upcoming releases... I like 3.0 but I cannot make a change if my users will spend 4 seconds waiting for topics to load when on an old version is much faster :)

[Immort]

Another thing, in the 3.0.2 i regulary get this when trying to browse different topics:



Which doesnt happen in 2.3.5.



Further, for the same topic, a HUGE difference...

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 16777216 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 6107 bytes) in /cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php on line 788

[bfarber]

What version of PHP are you using? PHP 5.2 comes with a default memory_limit of 128MB because of changes the PHP group made in how memory gets reported - you have it set to 16MB, which is likely not enough for some actions.

[Immort]

The PHP version we're running is 5.2.0.8, as you suggest we have 16MB as memory_limit.

Sadly, because of server hardware I think we cant make the change right now and will stick with 2.3.5 :S but we'll keep testing and wait a bit for another versions, hopefully you guys can keep optimizing it :)

[backdream]

[quote name='Immort' date='20 August 2009 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1250722736' post='1846539']
The PHP version we're running is 5.2.0.8, as you suggest we have 16MB as memory_limit.

Sadly, because of server hardware I think we cant make the change right now and will stick with 2.3.5 :S but we'll keep testing and wait a bit for another versions, hopefully you guys can keep optimizing it



Agreed, I will stick on 2.3.5 till the 3.x optimized.

ps. I take 10 second to load this reply page, and the page bottom display 1.2346 sec

[dvancouver]

I think Brandon is saying by having only 16MB available it is not going to really work so well, you need to increase that at least to 128MB.

[quote name='Immort' date='19 August 2009 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1250722736' post='1846539']
The PHP version we're running is 5.2.0.8, as you suggest we have 16MB as memory_limit.

Sadly, because of server hardware I think we cant make the change right now and will stick with 2.3.5 :S but we'll keep testing and wait a bit for another versions, hopefully you guys can keep optimizing it :)

[lunchbox67]

[quote name='dvancouver' date='19 August 2009 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1250729091' post='1846578']
I think Brandon is saying by having only 16MB available it is not going to really work so well, you need to increase that at least to 128MB.


:thumbsup:

[Ditchmonkey]

My 3.02 is very fast - at least as fast as my previous version of the site on Vbulletin 3.8.2

[immortality]

[quote name='dvancouver' date='20 August 2009 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1250729091' post='1846578']
I think Brandon is saying by having only 16MB available it is not going to really work so well, you need to increase that at least to 128MB.

And that's a step back, isnt it? :) If you have a forum that works perfectly in servers that are not that good, then I think they should strive to continue on the same line while delivering a great product.

Some people cant afford the google or wikipedia server array :P

In any case, as in my screenshot, its not that "a bit slower" would be a poblem, the difference on opening THE SAME topic is HUGE! 0.0802 to 1.6ish secs ?? c'mon...
Not to mention the memory errors.

This happens when I am THE ONLY person online in the 3.0.2 and the 2.3.5 is having traffic of 100ish people!!

Do you really think the new version doesnt need optimization??? :blink:



Ditchmonkey: Im not talking about other forums. Ive had IPB since the version 1.3!! I'm a loyal customer, but the requirements are tremendously excessive and the difference in optimization between version 2.3.5 and 3.0.2 is abismal. The problem is the difference between two versions of the same software :)

I really care and I want to use the new version, that's why I'm bringing this up! :)

[dr. Jekyll]

IPB 3.0.x has a mod rewrite and cannot be as fast as the old IPB 2.3. In any case the IPS staff is making a terrific job of optimization since the first beta release and I believe the result is more that acceptable. :)

[immortality]

I dont doubt they are trying and doing a terrific job, but trying to deny a problem when its reported is not going to help.

I dont think being defensive in every post will help anybody. Ive already said I've been a customer since v1.3. There's a reason for that ;)

And sorry, 0.08 (with more than 100 people online) to 1.6 secs (with only one person online) is not acceptable.

Again, all the devs of this fantastic software have my admiration, but really, its slow, this is an issue. It interests me to keep getting a good product and Im sure it interests them when people give their thoughts to keep making their product better.

[Yuriko]

Oh....I'll buy after this issue gets resolved.

[Charles]

I believe the devs are pointing out that it should not be as slow as you are pointing out and that PHP5 reports memory differently so 16MB is not enough. PHP5 itself ships with a default memory limit of 128MB so you are actually way below what the PHP group itself suggests. You can always submit a ticket and have them take a look to see if there is anything odd going on because it should not be as slow as you are saying.

[bfarber]

One more thing to add, though I'm not sure it'll help you any. As technology progresses, you'll find you simply need more resources to stay up to date. It's how computers and software work, I'm afraid.

2.0 uses more resources than 1.3
2.1 uses more resources than 2.0
2.3 uses more resources than 2.1
3.0 uses more resources than 2.3

Windows ME used more resources than Windows 98
Windows 2000 used more resources than NT/ME/98
Windows XP uses more resources than Win2K
Windows Vista uses more resources than Windows XP


Unfortunately you simply can't progress and add all the gee-whiz bells and whistles everyone wants without some sort of tradeoff in resource usage. I'm positive we could make IPB 3 just as efficient as IPB 2.3.....if we were working with the exact same feature set. i.e. get rid of friendly urls, get rid of the report center, get rid of personal conversations, get rid of the new skin. But then we'd be on 2.3, wouldn't we?

[immortality]

I understand that the "bling" costs more :P But I still think its a helluva difference.

Id really like to have your opinion (the devs input), do you guys think that difference and loading time in an empty forum is normal?

What I'd really like to know, (and you still didn't tell me) is if you guys are going to keep working to optimize it to perform better or if I can just stop wasting my time installing and testing new versions and I should keep using 2.3.5 because this one is never going to get better loading time-wise?

Thanks :)


PS: in your windows list, Windows 7 uses less resources and runs better than Vista, hm? :)




(edited some gramatical mistake, sorry, English is not my first language)

[Charles]

It's been an ongoing process... 3.0.1 was better than 3.0.0 and 3.0.2 better than 3.0.1. We keep improving things as we go.

However, like I said, there is clearly something wrong with your setup as it should not be as slow as you're reporting.

[immortality]

Thank you Charles!

I will definitely try new versions, hopefully one of them will be able to run better in my server.

I'll keep checking in the setup too, even though it's quite minimalistic: no hooks, no rating system, no portal, just plain old forum with new URLs (which is one of the best features I've seen in IPB so far).
I may try to install from scratch instead of updating my 2.3.5...

[bfarber]

[quote name='immortality' date='20 August 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1250778335' post='1846776']
I understand that the "bling" costs more :P But I still think its a helluva difference.

Id really like to have your opinion (the devs input), do you guys think that difference and loading time in an empty forum is normal?

What I'd really like to know, (and you still didn't tell me) is if you guys are going to keep working to optimize it to perform better or if I can just stop wasting my time installing and testing new versions and I should keep using 2.3.5 because this one is never going to get better loading time-wise?

Thanks :)


PS: in your windows list, Windows 7 uses less resources and runs better than Vista, hm? :)




(edited some gramatical mistake, sorry, English is not my first language)


[quote name='bfarber' date='19 August 2009 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1250690187' post='1846250']
This board works just fine for me. While we always look towards improving performance where-ever possible during upgrades, I don't think you're likely to see any magic bullets between minor point releases. The last few releases have improved performance quite a bit by identifying and working out many resource issues with memberlist and search, for instance.



I actually did respond to your question earlier. We always look to improve performance with each release (it is actually a specific release step that we take a certain amount of time out and focus solely on improving performance with each update). I would be surprised if we found a magic bullet though. Like "just remove this unnecessary line of code and everything's as fast as 1.3!", that sort of thing. :)



As for your Windows analogy....Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. :P In that case it would be

...
Windows XP uses more resources than Win2K
Windows 7 uses more resources than XP :whistle:

[Luke]

FYI, you need way more than 16MB in memory, and most computers that are years old at least have 1 GB of RAM. Your memory should be set to the standard 128MB, or at the very least 64MB (which should get you more millage than 16MB!). If you don't have much RAM, it's not that expensive.

Also the FURL feature is going to take a bit more resources on both the Apache and PHP end. If you can't raise the memory limit, I would recommend going back to the previous standard URL scheme.

Also, if your memory limit of PHP is 16MB I would take a look at the memory allotment in MySQL as well. This should at least be at the standard level. I would look at Apache's settings as well.

[dr. Jekyll]

[quote name='bfarber' date='20 August 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1250780417' post='1846795']
Windows 7 uses more resources than Vista


[mode OT on]

I hope NOT otherwise I buy my first Apple computer

[mode OT off]

[indie]

I would like to add my 2 cents and poor english :

- i'm currently on shared hosting and can say that 3.0.2 run correctly with memory_limit set to 24MB (the maximum i can configure)
- don't no if it's important, but between the time i upgrade my 2.1.4 to 3.02 and now (1 week ago), it seems that the board go a little bit faster (the cache feature ?)
- i'm agree with immortality, this 3.0.2 is way slower than previous version. I'm also a little bit disapointed but we have more features, more fun, more "technology" in IPB 3 than ever.
- Now, i hope hosting company will upgrade soon material and software capability to support the enhancement of our board software.

So probably there's a lot to do to optimize this version, but i suppose nobody would disagree that this 3.x version can't run as fast as 2.x with the same hosting configuration. So my recommandation will be, if you can, adjust your hosting machine before and upgrade to 3.x after.

Just a question : set the memory_limit of php up (say 32MB, 64MB, 128MB ?), can this make my board run faster ? I doubt but i'm not an expert. If someone can explain the importance of this settings ?

[bfarber]

[quote name='dr. Jekyll' date='20 August 2009 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1250784739' post='1846844']
[mode OT on]

I hope NOT otherwise I buy my first Apple computer

[mode OT off]


Bah, that was my mistake. I meant to say "XP". Edited my post.


[quote name='indie' date='20 August 2009 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1250785318' post='1846846']
- i'm currently on shared hosting and can say that 3.0.2 run correctly with memory_limit set to 24MB (the maximum i can configure)

...

Just a question : set the memory_limit of php up (say 32MB, 64MB, 128MB ?), can this make my board run faster ? I doubt but i'm not an expert. If someone can explain the importance of this settings ?


If your board does not give out of memory errors at 24MB, there is no benefit in increasing the limit. Mainly, the limit is included in php.ini as a way to shut down a php script that starts consuming too much memory. Changing it does not optimize your scripts in any way.