I currently have a django site, and it's kind of slow, so I want to understand what's going on. How can I profile it so to differentiate between:
effect of the network
effect of the hosting I'm using
effect of the javascript
effect of the server side execution (python code) and sql access.
any other effect I am not considering due to the massive headache I happen to have tonight.
Of course, for some of them I can use firebug, but some effects are correlated (e.g. javascript could appear slow because it's doing slow network access)
Thanks
client side:
check with firebug if/which page components take long to load, and how long the browser needs to render the page after loading is completed. If everything is fast but rendering takes its time, then probably your html/css/js is the problem, otherwise it's server side.
server side (i assume you sit on some unix-alike server):
check the web server with a small static content (a small gif or a little html page), using apache bench (ab, part of the apache webserver package) or httperf, the server should be able to answerat least 100 requests per second (of course this depends heavily on the size of your test content, webserver type, hardware and other stuff, so dont take that 100 to seriously). if that looks good,
test django with ab or httperf on a "static view" (one that doesnt use a database object), if thats slow it's a hint that you need more cpu power. check cpu utilization on the server with top. if thats ok, the problem might be in the way the web server executes the python code
if serving semi-static content is ok, your problem might be the database or IO-bound. Database problems are a wide field, here is some general advice:
check i/o throughput with iostat. if you see lot's of writes then you have get a better disc subsystem, faster raid, SSD hard drives .. or optimize your application to write less.
if its lots of reads, the host might not have enough ram dedicated as file system buffer, or your database queries might not be optimized
if i/o looks ok, then the database might be not be suited for your workload or not correctly configured. logging slow queries and monitoring database activity, locks etc might give you some idea
if you let us know what hardware/software you use i might be able to give more detailed advice
edit/PS: forgot one thing: of course your app might have a bad design and does lots of unnecessary/inefficient things ...
Take a look at the Django debug toolbar - that'll help you with the server side code (e.g. what database queries ran and how long they took); and is generally a great resource for Django development.
The other non-Django specific bits you could profile with yslow.
There are various tools, but problems like this are not hard to find because they are big.
You have a problem, and when you remove it, you will experience a speedup. Suppose that speedup is some factor, like 2x. That means the program is spending 50% of its time waiting for the slow part. What I do is just stop it a few times and see what it's waiting for. In this case, I would see the problem 50% of the times I stop it.
First I would do this on the client side. If I see that the 50% is spent waiting for the server, then I would try stopping it on the server side. Then if I see it is waiting for SQL queries, I could look at those.
What I'm almost certain to find out is that more work is being requested than is actually needed. It is not usually something esoteric like a "hotspot" or an "algorithm". It is usually something dumb, like doing multiple queries when one would have been sufficient, so as to avoid having to write the code to save the result from the first query.
Here's an example.
First things first; make sure you know which pages are slow. You might be surprised. I recommend django_dumpslow.
Related
I've been assigned a project which requires me to add some HTML page serving. This embedded system (running Linux CentOS 6.3) has some extra juice available, but also already has numerous responsibilities.
I considered Apache but tossed it due to bloat, I looked into Nginx but am now shying from that too. It just seems that I'm getting way more 'functionality' and as a result, more CPU usage than I need.
Can someone enlighten me as to why I wouldn't just implement the HTTP protocol myself using async sockets?
My specific needs are:
Receive and decode GETs and POSTs.
Send CSS, JS and JPG files as requested.
Output header, cookie, head and body data based upon the decode of the GETs/POSTs.
Given that I don't need the myriad things these webservers offer, am I being naive in assuming this course of doing it myself? What would you suggest or warn against?
Basically, you use a web server because then you get the functionality you want in a form that's already been tested, is more reliable than your first code is likely to be, and is supported by a large community of others. If Apache and nginx are too heavyweight for you (although nginx is pretty much characterized by how lightweight it is for heavy loads) and especially if the load you expect is very light, then look around for other options.
Wiki has a whole page of comparisons of lightweight web servers.
An easy trap to fall into: thinking "I don't need all the functionality in Product X, I'll just write my own with just the functionality that I need" only to end up reimplementing Product X entirely, one newly-discovered requirement at a time.
I sort of doubt that an embedded system that can run CentOS okay is so resource-starved that it can't run Nginx comfortably (or even Apache, which people run on the Raspberry Pi just fine with appropriate configuration tweaks), given reasonable assumptions about how many pages you are actually serving. I ran it on a Pentium 266 with something like 256MB of RAM serving a few simple PHP apps that served roughly a page every two seconds, with no issues. As I recall, it's fairly modular, so you can just choose not to load the functionality you don't think you need. And, later, when your requirements change and you find out you do need it, you can just plug it back in :)
If you are really and truly concerned about resource consumption, look into web servers designed for embedded applications. I hear Cherokee is quite nice. Mongoose looks promising as well.
Go further you can, I began with this http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/HTTP2.html
I have a Windows Phone 7 app that (currently) calls an OData service to get data, and throws the data into a listbox. It is horribly slow right now. The first thing I can think of is because OData returns way more data than I actually need.
What are some suggestions/best practices for speeding up the fetching of data in a Windows Phone 7 app? Anything I could be doing in the app to speed up the retrieval of data and putting into in front of the user faster?
Sounds like you've already got some clues about what to chase.
Some basic things I'd try are:
Make your HTTP requests as small as possible - if possible, only fetch the entities and fields you absolutely need.
Consider using multiple HTTP requests to fetch the data incrementally instead of fetching everything in one go (this can, of course, actually make the app slower, but generally makes the app feel faster)
For large text transfers, make sure that the content is being zipped for transfer (this should happen at the HTTP level)
Be careful that the XAML rendering the data isn't too bloated - large XAML structure repeated in a list can cause slowness.
When optimising, never assume you know where the speed problem is - always measure first!
Be careful when inserting images into a list - the MS MarketPlace app often seems to stutter on my phone - and I think this is caused by the image fetch and render process.
In addition to Stuart's great list, also consider the format of the data that's sent.
Check out this blog post by Rob Tiffany. It discusses performance based on data formats. It was written specifically with WCF in mind but the points still apply.
As an extension to the Stuart's list:
In fact there are 3 areas - communication, parsing, UI. Measure them separately:
Do just the communication with the processing switched off.
Measure parsing of fixed ODATA-formatted string.
Whether you believe or not it can be also the UI.
For example a bad usage of ProgressBar can result in dramatical decrease of the processing speed. (In general you should not use any UI animations as explained here.)
Also, make sure that the UI processing does not block the data communication.
I currently have a GUI single-threaded application in C++ and Qt. It takes a good 1 minute to load (read from disk) and ~5 seconds to close (saving settings, finalize connections, ...).
What can I do to make my application appear to be faster?
My first thought was to have a server component of the app that does all the works while the GUI component is only for displaying. The communication is done via socket, pipe or memory map. That seems like an overkill (in term of development effort) since my application is only used by a handful of people.
The first step is to start profiling. Use an actual, low-overhead profiling tool (eg, on Linux, you could use oprofile), not guesswork. What is your app doing in that one minute it takes to start up? Can any of that work be deferred until later, or perhaps skipped entirely?
For example, if you're loading, say, a list of document templates, you could defer that until the user tells you to create a new document. If you're scanning the system for a list of fonts, load a cached list from last startup and use that until you finish updating the font list in a separate thread. These are just examples - use a profiler to figure out where the time's actually going, and then attack the code starting with the largest time figures.
In any case, some of the more effective approaches to keep in mind:
Skip work until needed. If you're doing initialization for some feature that's used infrequently, skip it until that feature is actually used.
Defer work until after startup. You can take care of a lot of things on a separate thread while the UI is responsive. If you are collecting information that changes infrequently but is needed immediately, consider caching the value from a previous run, then updating it in the background.
For your shutdown time, hide your GUI instantly, and then spend those five seconds shutting down in the background. As long as the user doesn't notice the work, it might as well be instantaneous.
You could employ the standard trick of showing something interesting while you load.
Like many games nowadays show a tip or two while they are loading
It looks to me like you're only guessing at where all this time is being burned. "Read from disk" would not be high on my list of candidates. Learn more about what's really going on.
Use a decent profiler.
Profiling is a given, of course.
Most likely, you may find I/O is substantial - reading in your startup files. As bdonlan notes, deferring work is a standard technique. Google 'lazy evaluation'.
You can also consider caching data that does not change. Save a cache in a faster format, such as binary. This is most useful if you happen to have a large static data set read into something like an array.
My company is at the very end of development process of some (awesome:)) web application. This app will be available as a online service for (hopefully) some significant number of users. This is our biggest django release so far and as we are preparing to release some question about deployment have to be answered.
Q1: how to determine required server parameters for predicted X number of users/Y hits per minute or other factor?
Q2: what hosting solution (shared/vps/dedicated) is worth considering?
Q3: what optimizations can be done at a first place?
I know that this is very subjective and dependent of size of a site, code quality and other factors but I'm very interested in your experiences with django (and not only django) deployment. Any hints, links, advices are kindly welcome. Thanks in advance.
What hosting solution you want to have depends also on how much you want to take of your server yourself (from upgrades etc to backup...), and you should decide if you want to have the responsibility or leave it to someone else.
I think you can only really determine the necessary requirements and bottlenecks in your applications through testing with the estimated load! Try to simulate as many requests.... as you expect - think about caching (where memcached is the best option you have)! If you try to cache things one great tool is the django debug toolbar (http://github.com/robhudson/django-debug-toolbar) which can show you also much about how many database hits you have (dont take the times it shows for that for granted, but analyse them and keep an eye on the number of hits) and eg. how many templates are rendered....
If your system grows, you can first of all think about serving your static media files from another location! Coming to the web server I have made great experiences using lighttpd instead of the fat apache, but I guess you have to evaluate that for yourself!
Also take in consideration what database backend to use, in shared envionments there's in most cases a bigger load on the mysql than on the postgres servers, but also evaluate what works best for you!
You can get some guesses here, but to get a halfway reasonable performance estimate you have to measure the performance of your application yourself. You should then be able to roughly extrapolate the performance on different hardware.
Most of the time the bottleneck is the database, you should get enough RAM to keep it in memory if possible.
"Web application" can encompass so many different things, we can really do no more than guess here.
As for optimization, if it fits to your needs implement some caching (e.g. with memchached), that can give you huge speed improvements.
There are different "Application memory" options (like 80MB...200MB) in django-friendly hosting called webfaction and I'm confused deciding which one I should buy.
Could someone please walk me through the ideas on how to figure out how much memory my project might require (excluding operating system, the main apache server and the database servers memory requirements)? I understand in theory I'll need to perform some kind of load testing, but thought there might be ways to calculate that in advance with some simple/relatively easy understandable approach.
I don't know how hard they enforce application memory usage limit, and another question is: what will happen if more users came to the site and more threads started than what I expected? Will the application crash? Or will delays just become uncomfortable?
And - no, application is not ready yet (I can't measure anything right now). Development environment if it matters is Winodows 7, 64-bit. Hosting itself is some kind of Linux I think.
(Sorry if it's not a stackoverflow question.)
Sorry, but until you have the application completely developed, you can't say anything about the kind of memory it'll use. I recommend that you take their "lowest" plan, and renew to it to fit your needs, or still better: get hosting after you finish developing the application.
On the other hand, if you had the application ready, you could just run it in Apache with your host's config and some sample data to get a rough estimate...
I agree that you can' tell much before your app is ready.
As a vague estimation consider that your host is supposed to be "django-friendly" so some "basic" application should run without problems. Try and upgrade later if that's possible easily.
Also consider the type of data that is processed with your app, I eg. ran into troubles once when I had to process really large image uploads that made the whole site crash.
Also keep in mind if you need some ram for additional processes eg. memcache!
Webfaction are indeed a Django-friendly host, and your application will certainly not crash if it starts needing more memory than you have paid for. What will happen is that you will be allowed to use small amounts of extra memory, but if you consistently go over the limit they will send you a polite email requesting that you either reduce the load or pay for more.