New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Latency Observations

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

I am noticing some challenges with thread and post latency and I'd like to get a better feel for who it's impacting. So, if you don't mind, please post in this thread your latency observations for EpicSki pages (both after a post and when you are just viewing threads). If you're running Firebug, please use the data from it. If not, give your best guess, please.

 

I am at my sister-in-law's house right now:

 

ISP: Comcast

Speedtest.net to Dallas: 6.5Mbps, under 45ms ping

 

No Firebug

Thread latency: 7s

After post: 15s

post #2 of 29
Thread Starter 

Home:

 

ISP: Qwest DSL

Open reply: 83 requests, 259KB, 1.04m
Post: 59 requests, 458KB (204KB from cache), 36.09s
View thread: 25 requests, 63KB, 7.07s

Speedtest.net: to Dallas

ping: 947ms
download: 1995Kb/s
upload: 361Kb/s

post #3 of 29

 

Here are results for a ~50 post thread:

 

View:

60 requests
   
444 KB
(0 B from cache)
6.91s

 

Reply:

63 requests
   
455 KB
(0 B from cache)
8.14s

 

Post to this thread:

45 requests
   
406 KB
(264 KB from cache)
6.27s

I feel bad for the people on dialup.

post #4 of 29

Almost Dialup:

post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 

crgildart, what latency are you seeing with EpicSki pages?

post #6 of 29

I'm seeing occasional networkl time out crashes with EpicSki (the server took too long to respond).  And when it happens I uually have to clear out my temps before I can get back in to EpicSkli.  When it happens while actually submitting a post sometimes several copies (last time five copies) of the post get added to the thread.

post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 

Interesting. I'm seeing lots and lots of latency here (Qwest in Boulder)... much more than other sites that I've used. I'm trying to figure out the "why"s.

post #8 of 29

Me too.  How can I measure that it in Safari? 

 

 

post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post

 

Me too.  How can I measure that it in Safari? 

 

 

Safari doesn't have a plug-in architecture, so you have to use something like SIMBL (which I found to be a bit troublesome... it is a real hack, after all). I did look around and wasn't able to find anything.

 

BTW, lucky you. That performance is sweet!

post #10 of 29
Thread Starter 
post #11 of 29

post #12 of 29
Thread Starter 

Thanks, Comprex... have you looked at it when creating a post and also after posting a post?

post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post

 

Interesting. I'm seeing lots and lots of latency here (Qwest in Boulder)... much more than other sites that I've used. I'm trying to figure out the "why"s.

I was seeing this more often in the first week, but rarely now.  Mostly the site is responsive and quick, with rare failures to respond for a minute or so that result in timeouts.

 

At one point (say a year ago) the very best pings I could get with Qwest in ABQ were ~250ms, but they seem to have stepped up their game to some extent.  Back when Qwest here had really bad latency issues, they did apply to different geographical regions differently...so some sites were really slow.  Even now, I get notably better results to the East Coast than West Coast.

post #14 of 29
Thread Starter 

There is, of course, only so much we can do. I'm pretty familiar with Internet performance measurement and management (actually co-designed the graphical view of web pages that are now so common when I was at Service Metrics back in the late '90s; still kinda proud of changing an industry so dramatically and so quickly). However, I think that there are a number of things that we can likely do in terms of how we stucture the pages that could help with this as much as we can.

 

I appear to have additional issues that are related to either some Qwest changes or something else on my link that I may have some time to debug this coming week.

post #15 of 29

 

Thanks.  Seems to work:)

post #16 of 29

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by ssh View Post

 

Thanks, Comprex... have you looked at it when creating a post and also after posting a post?

 

Yes.   7.69s after post.

  The big timesucks seem to be
GET icon_buttons 1.56s
GET plain_buttons 1.23s
GET stars_green_4_half...  1.18s
GET stars_green_3...     1.16s

and whatever is coming from yui.yahooapis.com


http://yui.yahooapis.com/combo?/2.6.0/build/utilities/utilities.js&/2.6.0/build/datasource/datasource-min.js&/2.6.0/build/autocomplete/autocomplete-min.js&/2.6.0/build/calendar/calendar-min.js&/2.6.0/build/container/container-min.js   at 1.65s

 

doesn't sound like that's what you're looking for though?

 

post #17 of 29

Man, Chris, are you on a direct T1?  That is insanely fast.

 

post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

 

Man, Chris, are you on a direct T1?  That is insanely fast.

 

 

Nope, can't explain it.

 

Plain ole residential cable TV/Internet package.  And, I've got to be near the end of the line, if not at the end.

 

 

 

post #19 of 29
Thread Starter 

Actually, Chris' performance is more like 18 T1s (each T1 is 1.4Mbps). Nice, dude!

 

My guess is that there just aren't that many people using Comcast up in that neck of the words at that hour of the night. It'll probably vary quite a bit, and Comcast probably overbuilt, too.

 

Comprex, that's helpful. Thanks.

post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post

My guess is that there just aren't that many people using Comcast up in that neck of the words at that hour of the night. It'll probably vary quite a bit, and Comcast probably overbuilt, too.

Five or six years ago I had that kind of cable performance, pretty consistently actually, in CT  One of the few things I miss about the east is widely available fast intertubes.

 

FIOS Phil needs to post here.

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 

Almost Dialup:

 

I contacted my ISP today and confirmed that the 760 kb/s option is the only one available in my neighborhood at the present time.  Funny thing is that our service is faster and more reliable than our friends RoadRunner on the other side of town so we will stay with DSL and wait for the infrastructure to be upgraded when they get around to it.

post #22 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

 

Man, Chris, are you on a direct T1?  That is insanely fast.

 

 

Better today.

 

post #23 of 29
Thread Starter 

Me, too... I called Qwest about my abismal performance, they had me do the usual "troubleshooting" (including making sure all the cables were plugged in). My setup is unusual (of course), and so I had a difficult time explaining what was really going on. Nonetheless, having unplugged my router and forced it to reconnect to the PPoE seems to have solved it. Funny that:

 

post #24 of 29

Humm, motel in Bedford PA is 8 times faster than my home and I still got a network timeout error

 

 

One thing I've noticed is it never bombs out when I use my VPN connection even at the sluggish 760 kb/s connection speed.

post #25 of 29
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the data... keep 'em coming!

post #26 of 29

This is from last night, but I didn't try to upload it ...page refreshes were taking long enough as it was...

 

 

post #27 of 29

We're aware that the page load after making a new post is sub-optimal.  It's forcing an aggressive refresh, to ensure that you get an updated copy of the page with your new post on it (rather than your browser's cached copy of the page from before you posted).  This unfortunately forces re-requests of content (javacript, CSS, and images) that would otherwise be served from your browser's cache.  This inefficiency is, fortunately, limited to posting.

 

You should find that normal navigation (clicking links, etc.) makes very good use of the cache -- we've spent quite a bit of time making sure of that.  Normal navigation of this sort accounts for the vast majority of traffic to the site.

 

Keep in mind that forcing a refresh via F5 or the "reload" button forces requests of content that would normally be served from your browser's cache.  This is not representative of what your browser would do during normal navigation.

post #28 of 29
Thread Starter 

Frank, keep in mind the nice feature of vB that allowed for "Quick Replies" to just refresh the bottom of the thread page (it didn't re-paginate, either). That was very nice, and together with the "Quick Reply" box at the bottom of the page, allowed for much faster navigation and posting experience.

post #29 of 29

That's more or less what we'd want to do to resolve this issue.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home