On 07/18/2012 03:45 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM, John Dennis <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 07/18/2012 02:59 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Petr Vobornik <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On 07/17/2012 11:43 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote: >>>> >>>> 8><------ >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm beginning to think this is just the Web UI itself instead of 389 >>>>>>> although it is really difficult to tell. I've poured over the debug >>>>>>> logs and didn't see anything that caused me concern. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's certainly usable, but I just got really spoiled by the >>>>>>> unbelievable quickness of 2.1.3. When your release notes indicate it >>>>>>> should be faster, what are you comparing it to? Maybe this only >>>>>>> happens with upgraded instances and not fresh installs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is always possible something didn't get upgraded properly but I've >>>>>> done >>>>>> 2.1.3 -> 2.2.0 upgrades and haven't seen this. When we say something is >>>>>> faster we're always referring to the previous version (or versions). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I was just lucky with 2.1.3. On a first load it might take some >>>>> time to load the "frame" as I call it. But the data would load almost >>>>> instantaneously from there (certainly no more than 1 s) as you moved >>>>> from page to page. Here, even if I return to the same page, the system >>>>> acts as if the data is begin fetched for the very first time as it is >>>>> no faster than the first load. Maybe that is significant to the >>>>> problem? >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the culprit is Web UI paging capabilities introduced in 2.2. With >>>> lot of users, responses might grow in size. You can check their size and >>>> duration in browser developers tools. I suggest chrome/chromium - press >>>> F12 >>>> and choose 'network' tab. >>>> >>>> This new feature can't be disabled in configuration. To test if the >>>> slowdown >>>> is done by paging you can (at own risk) replace line >>>> /usr/share/ipa/ui/facet.js:538 >>>> >>>> that.pagination = spec.pagination === undefined ? true : spec.pagination; >>>> >>>> with: >>>> >>>> that.pagination = false; >>>> >>>> Note: It will break some other parts of the UI - so for testing only. >>> >>> I've made the substitution in the code (was line 507 for me-do I have >>> a different version?). Looking at the time chart in Chrome I see that >>> the bulk of the time is for /ipa/session waiting. Would "waiting" mean >>> waiting for the directory server or memcached? >> >> Actually neither, it means waiting for a response from the web server >> (technically it's making an RPC call via HTTP Ajax). The RPC call needs to >> go through the web server, memcached, and typically will invoke one or more >> directory server queries, and run a bunch of Python to massage everything >> before the RPC returns with the result. >> >> It doesn't look like you've got much difference in times between with >> pagination on and pagination off. I don't know the pagination code but I >> suspect it's run after the RPC call returns so the RPC timing is not telling >> us much with respect to that. >> >> Waiting for up to 3 seconds for an RPC call does seem on the high side. Do >> you have a lot of LDAP data? > No. 49 users, 17 hosts, 25 services, 6 DNS zones, only 1 of which has > any significant amount of hosts in it. > >> But really, unless we get timing results for each component we're grasping >> at straws :-( > Understood. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Freeipa-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
Do you have a replica and does this replica behave the same? -- Thank you, Dmitri Pal Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio Red Hat Inc. ------------------------------- Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ _______________________________________________ Freeipa-users mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
