Results for question #2: I installed FireBug and setup the console to show logging. I then brought up one of the reviews that has been a problem for us and showed hundreds of HTTPS GET requests for diff comments, each taking about ~200-300 milliseconds. It took ~6 minutes to fully load the page.
I then set the $("review.body").hide() and refreshed the page, and it still took almost 3 minutes to load. The same HTTPS GET requests were being displayed, but this time they only took ~90milliseconds and were showing "304 Not Modified". This is my first use of FireBug so please advise if you'd like more or different information. On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. I'll be interested in seeing the results. > > I'm working on code now that should address these issues (though some > further decisions will be made based on #2 and #3). > > Essentially, we're looking at expanding/collapsing reviews based on the > following logic: > > For each review: > If the user has a pending reply to this review, expand it. > Else if the user has replied to the review, and there's no further > activity on the review, collapse it. > Else If the review is newer than the latest change description, AND it's > the latest review from that user, expand it. > Else if there's activity on the review since the latest change > description and since the last time the user viewed the page, expand it. > Else, collapse it. > > Users can of course manually expand a review. > > This should keep the number of visible reviews quite low. Hopefully it'll be > the set of reviews that the user actually wants to see. The review contents > won't be loaded in unless the user does expand the review, so the page > should load a lot faster. > > This doesn't solve the issue of one single review with many hundreds of > comments, but I'm hoping that's not a common case, and that would have to be > solved differently. > > The the above logic seems broken to someone, please let me know! > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > answers inline below... > > > On Mar 6, 3:52 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote: > > > A couple more questions. I'm playing around with a couple possible fixes, > > > but need to find out more where the bottleneck is. Clearly it's > > > browser-side, but the question is whether it's the fact that there's a > > lot > > > in the DOM or whether the rendering is the slow part. > > > > 1) Is the page still slow once it fully loads? > > > Yes, the comment boxes that are used to write comments are slow even > > after the page is fully loaded. It doesn't make sense to me, but this > > is the behavior being seen by most everyone. (This is only the case > > for reviews with many comments.) > > > In addition to this, some folks are also complaining that the page > > cannot be used until the page is fully loaded - this has not been my > > experience but I wanted to pass it along too. > > > Also, we are seeing these issues on reviews that have 10-20 different > > file diffs. Now that I mention this I will try to repro with just one > > file diff to see if that makes a difference or not. > > > And finally, the CPU gets pegged when these pages are loading. > > > > 2) Can you install the Firebug extension for Firefox and, in the console, > > > type the following: > > > > $(".review .body").hide() > > > I will get back to you on this question. > > > > And see if the page is now faster to interact with? (All the reviews will > > be > > > hidden until you reload, so this is clearly not a fix by itself, but will > > > tell us whether the bottleneck is the DOM or the rendering). > > > > 3) Are these comments spread across many reviews? Or does a single review > > > usually have enough comments to cause problems by itself? > > > Yes, the comments are spread across many reviews. > > I will try to reproduce using a single review to provide more insight > > and get back to you. > > > > Christian > > > > -- > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thank-you for making this a priority! I'll keep an eye out for the fix > > > > and grab immediately. > > > > > Breaking up the reviews into smaller pieces is not a use case that is > > > > going down well here, but it is known. thanks again! > > > > > On Mar 6, 2:54 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote: > > > > > We'd have to decide what we're doing to fix this first. Depending on > > what > > > > > that is, it could take a few days to implement, or longer. We can > > make it > > > > a > > > > > priority for beta 1 (the next release), and of course you'd be able > > to > > > > just > > > > > upgrade to a nightly once it's in. > > > > > > Short-term, I'd just advise splitting up the changes more, if > > possible. > > > > > Having smaller things to review should mean fewer comments. > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > -- > > > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > > > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I mean comments not reviews. > > > > > > > I'm seeing the same issues on Alpha4 on my test server. It seems to > > me > > > > > > that the loading of the diff fragments across all the comments is > > > > > > causing our problems - loading such a review sometimes crashes the > > > > > > browser (i've seen this on firefox mostly) and in IE the page often > > > > > > shows a script error popup box part way through the load. > > > > > > > Changing the page size would help us so much, can you give any > > > > > > indication of a time frame for such a change? > > > > > > > We'd benefit from the other suggestions as well, but jsut getting > > > > > > something workable for medium-to-large reviews is our immediate > > > > > > concern. > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2:39 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I think we should. The thing is that the newest review request is > > at > > > > the > > > > > > > bottom, so it's kinda weird. > > > > > > > > Another thing we should look into is auto-collapsing old reviews > > > > (such as > > > > > > > reviews made before the last update to the review request), > > allowing > > > > them > > > > > > to > > > > > > > expand again. This would fetch the collapsed items from the > > server > > > > > > > dynamically. > > > > > > > > Scalability of the review request page is certainly something we > > > > should > > > > > > > tackle for 1.0. > > > > > > > > As far as using Alpha 2 vs. Alpha 4, if you use Alpha 4 the page > > > > should > > > > > > load > > > > > > > pretty fast, with the diff fragments loading dynamically after. > > Even > > > > with > > > > > > > 150+ comments (do you mean actual comments or reviews, btw?) it > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > take forever in alpha 4 to display those. Just might take a while > > for > > > > > > those > > > > > > > diff fragments ot finish loading across all comments. > > > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > > > > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > > > > > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Trowbridge < > > trowb...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we need to paginate the reviews page in addition to the > > > > diff? > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. The slowness is: > > > > > > > > > 1. page load takes several minutes (the more comments, the > > longer > > > > it > > > > > > > > > takes) > > > > > > > > > 2. typing a comment is very slow on reviews with many > > comments. > > > > > > > > > 3. Scrolling on the review page is painful when many reviews > > > > > > > > > Developers are speculating its due to a huge DOM and say that > > > > > > > > > performance benchmarks seem relative to the document size, > > > > > > complexity, > > > > > > > > > and browser type (Safari works best, then FireFox, then IE.) > > > > > > > > > > Can we change the paging size the ReviewBoard uses? That > > would > > > > help > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > > most likely. > > > > > > > > > > Further details: > > > > > > > > > yes, we're using memcache. 4G ram. > > > > > > > > > > We've been running Alpha2 the past couple weeks. But it seems > > > > > > Alpha1-4 > > > > > > > > > also have same issues. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 1:42 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> It's important to find out what's causing the slowdown. What > > > > part is > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > >> slow? The page itself, or the progressive diffs inside of > > it? > > > > Alpha > > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > >> doesn't have progressive diffs so it will be slower than > > alpha 4 > > > > in > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> regard. > > > > > > > > > >> We have some large review requests like this at VMware too, > > and > > > > > > haven't > > > > > > > > seen > > > > > > > > >> this slowdown. > > > > > > > > > >> Are you using memcached on the server? > > > > > > > > > >> How much ram do you have on the server? > > > > > > > > > >> Christian > > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > >> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > > > > > > > >> Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > > > > > > > > >> VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM, mary <ciaom...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > I was able to roll back to Alpha1 but ReviewBoard > > displayed > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > >> > problem... an unresponsive/seriously slow GUI for reviews > > with > > > > > > 150+ > > > > > > > > >> > comments. I also upgrade to Alpha4 with the same results. > > > > > > > > > >> > Our company cannot use ReviewBoard with this serious > > > > performance > > > > > > > > >> > handicap. > > > > > > > > > >> > We've been very happy with ReviewBoard up until now. Is > > anyone > > > > > > looking > > > > > > > > >> > into this perf issue? > > > > > > > > > >> > We're going to have to move back to using <cringe> > > CodeStriker > > > > > > soon if > > > > > > > > >> > this isn't addressed. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---