h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 A fresh IPS4 setup seems to have a rather large time to first byte. I have a dedi, optimized php and apache setup. 4 cores, plenty of RAM. SSD drives. Zend opcode/memcached etc being tested from a few miles away. Server in London, test from London. The TTFB is ~ 1 second. This is abnormal and normally caused by server spec or DB bottlenecks. Server is good. Invisions own site has the same issue when tested. Other forum software responds in ~300 when tested on same server. Is this something you are aware of and would look into improving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul.F Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 3 minutes ago, DealTrakr said: Zend opcode/memcached Use one or the other, not both. Some people would beg to differ, research that one. One trap many fall into is installing a few different caches. Don't. Zend opcache is very good in PHP 5.5+. Try using a cloud service. They will also do some caching, but on their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 The do different things Zend opcode/memcached both is fine as far as I am aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevengeFNF Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 31 minutes ago, Paul.F said: Use one or the other, not both. Some people would beg to differ, research that one. One trap many fall into is installing a few different caches. Don't. Zend opcache is very good in PHP 5.5+. Try using a cloud service. They will also do some caching, but on their side. What? Opcache and Memcached are two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Anyone had much luck using innodb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul.F Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 1 hour ago, DealTrakr said: A fresh IPS4 setup seems to have a rather large time to first byte. I have a dedi, optimized php and apache setup. 4 cores, plenty of RAM. SSD drives. Zend opcode/memcached etc being tested from a few miles away. Server in London, test from London. The TTFB is ~ 1 second. This is abnormal and normally caused by server spec or DB bottlenecks. Server is good. Invisions own site has the same issue when tested. Other forum software responds in ~400 when tested on same server. Is this something you are aware of and would look into improving? https://blog.cloudflare.com/ttfb-time-to-first-byte-considered-meaningles/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yeah, I read that back in 2012. I dont consider it meaningless. Further, that is CloudFlare making excuses for their own setup. The server I am testing is not on CloudFlare, so it isn't relevant. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersnGears Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 1 minute ago, Paul.F said: https://blog.cloudflare.com/ttfb-time-to-first-byte-considered-meaningles/ It's not meaningless if Google says it's not meaningless. While I agree with the idea of not obsessing over small changes in TTFB, there is a large difference in TTFB between IPS and other heavy PHP software on the same server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasiko Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 i wonder if php 7 would have any significant impact on TTFB along with httpd 2.0 Anyone wanna do comparison test? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahmad E. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 3 minutes ago, maidos said: i wonder if php 7 would have any significant impact on TTFB along with httpd 2.0 Anyone wanna do comparison test? :D It certainly improved it for me but I wouldn't say it's significant. Unfortunately I cannot do a comparison test due to having sucuri in the middle which also affects TTFB :/ Might consider turning it off for a test but not sure yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasiko Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 so your server is using httpd 2 aswell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahmad E. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 40 minutes ago, maidos said: so your server is using httpd 2 aswell? Yes but since sucuri only supports SPDY it will be served through that unless you bypass sucuri (which I do). Edit: tested it using webpagetest without having sucuri in the middle, TTFB is 0.500-0.630 seconds (php7 + http/2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSP Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yeah, the increase in average server execution time from IPS 3.4 to 4.0 is quite bad at the moment I'll give you a guess on when the community that this chart belongs to was upgraded: (October 28 is the answer) I've tracked some of it down to slow queries. But a big part of it seems to be a general significant increase in the execution of the "framework basics" itself. It seems a "fast" page load is now done in approximately a second, while a fast page load in 3.4 was done in 0.25 seconds. I know 4.1 will bring some improvements, but due to various factors I'm unable to do that upgrade in the immediate future. Still, I suspect 4.1 will still be far from as fast as we had 3.4 running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 From some inital testing it does appear that it could be related to opening like 14 connections for the css and js. 2 would be better. 4 even. But 14? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasiko Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 can we get any comment regarding minimizing amount of css and js? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSP Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 2 hours ago, DealTrakr said: From some inital testing it does appear that it could be related to opening like 14 connections for the css and js. 2 would be better. 4 even. But 14? This has nothing to do with the server response time for the initial document (or first byte delivered). Server response time is basically the time it takes for index.php to deliver the HTML-document that tells you to load 14 CSS/JS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracy Perry Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 11 hours ago, DealTrakr said: Anyone had much luck using innodb? First site in my sig is running under it (actually they all are, but only the first one is an IPS site). It's not busy since it's a new'ish site and it's a very limited target market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobrenome Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I was told to move to MariaDB with XtraDB (InnoDB) for better performance. I have no comparison data, but I was convinced at the time by some technological arguments in favor of MariaDB with XtraDB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sudo Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 16 hours ago, DealTrakr said: Anyone had much luck using innodb? You should use innodb but along with MySQL 5.6 or a later MariaDB version as older versions as considered much slower with InnoDB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lab Rats Rule Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 You know I did some testing and gzip did a much better job then memcached. Try it... Server settings for this and pigz may make a difference also. But here is my cpanel optimize configuration for now. Adding images adversely impacted page load time a lot. application/x-javascript application/javascript application/xhtml+xml text/html text/xml text/css text/javascript Keep alive also decreased my page load time by 85% for my older version site. And made my 4.1 site 2.5 times as fast. A ctrl f5 loads my graphic intense and heavily modded older version with VPAID, animated and enhanced ads in 1.5 seconds. My 4.1 with the same ads loads in 1.75 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lab Rats Rule Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 2 hours ago, ZeroHour said: You should use innodb but along with MySQL 5.6 or a later MariaDB version as older versions as considered much slower with InnoDB. It also seems once you run >5.6 with innodb there is no going back to a lessor version.. So if anyone switches servers afterwords, you have to have >5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Running innodb now on mysql 5.6. Seems quicker. Still a cold first page load has some large TTFB. Have keepalive and gzip enabled anyway. Will try MariaDB over the weekend I think if it's worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevengeFNF Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 16 minutes ago, DealTrakr said: Running innodb now on mysql 5.6. Seems quicker. Still a cold first page load has some large TTFB. Have keepalive and gzip enabled anyway. Will try MariaDB over the weekend I think if it's worth it? I noticed a good performance improvement with MariaDB. Do you also have my.cnf optimized to innodb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-y-b-r-i-d Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 I do, but if you have any recomendations Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevengeFNF Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 20 minutes ago, DealTrakr said: I do, but if you have any recomendations Thank you! Post here your my.cnf and the result of mysqltuner.pl and i will give my recomendations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.