DotNetNuke

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

J7Mitch — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:54:07 GMT

delyk:

What is the overhead required for multiple trips back to the database to fetch the modules/containers/skins/content?

Just loading the menu alone involves repeated DB calls.

Would there be any significant performance boost if the entire site was rendered into static pages which would then be served back to the users?

Any updates or modifications would result in a "recompilation" if you will, and ignoring security concerns, how much of a boost do you think rendering everything statically would bring?

That is what caching your modules does, and the cool part is that you can do it selectively. So if you have a module that is updating more regularly you can give it a lower # of seconds in the cache.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

trond.rud — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:56:09 GMT

Ok, finally the post was given the green light.

So here is the link.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

trond.rud — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:05:14 GMT

jbrinkman, I started a thread on this over a Dot Net nuke forum.

Anyone who cares to read it just look for my nick. I have the same nick over there. I am so lucky that I am moderated, and apperently a great threath to the community:-), so I can not post link yet.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

mgleason — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:52:27 GMT

Hey Joe,

Where are you hosting this? It comes up very fast for me.

BTW, www.PortVista.com somes up fast also - one reason I was looking at WHFL - possibly the the semi-dedicated plan.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

delyk — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:49:05 GMT

What is the overhead required for multiple trips back to the database to fetch the modules/containers/skins/content?

Just loading the menu alone involves repeated DB calls.

Would there be any significant performance boost if the entire site was rendered into static pages which would then be served back to the users?

Any updates or modifications would result in a "recompilation" if you will, and ignoring security concerns, how much of a boost do you think rendering everything statically would bring?

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

trond.rud — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:31:58 GMT

I think viewstate reduction can be done in 1.1 as well. I could be wrong, look what happend last time I tried to pull something out of memory:-) it's higher up in this very thread.

I saw an article which I belive was actullay for a MySQL driven PHP cms, but it was my understanding that this could easily be done in .net to reduce database trips as well.
Will look at the library tomorrow, before I take some days off from the hard life of being a student and go skiing.

Easter break!

Ah. Sun and hot weather, who needs it anyway.
Give me minus 5 and fresh powder....

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

jbrinkman — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:02:55 GMT

I started a thread, and after an hour of typing a response, I was hit by the refresh bug. Didn't have it in me to redo my work. Will do it again this afternoon.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

trond.rud — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:32:33 GMT

ErikVB:
trond.rud:
In USA alone, there is estimated 75 millions + users of internet that have dial up. Europe is in ever worst shape when it comes to xDSL or broadband.

Not sure where you get your figures, USA ranks 19th overall in broadband penetration, after many European and Asian countries:

(from http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0601/)

Cheers,

Erik

Took that one from memory, must be getting old, or could it a tumor?
Well, your link just made my point stronger, now didn't it?

Just because we that live and breath for IT, have been on boradband connections for so many years we should not assume that is true for everybody. But there are still high numbers of folks using dial-ups, and we should cater for them as well. I do not have any figure at hand for people with less then 20/20 vision, but if add in them too, the numbers will be even more interesting.

Have anyone started a thread on this over at Dot Net Nuke?

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

isomies — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:57:38 GMT

Has anyone compared ASP 2 against 1.1?

2 is meant to be faster from what I recall. I know the viewstate size has been reduced.

As it is a zero or near to zero effort task it would be worth knowing if the promised speed increase is there.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

ErikVB — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:13:45 GMT

liorlustig:
wow, Israel is number 3 !
cool, we are on the map !

with a quarterly growth of 0.8 % we (the Netherlands) will catch you fast ;)

Anyway, since we are talking about all kinds of optimization schemes, i found this blog post by Philip Beadle: http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryID/396/Default.aspx

that should help in making all modules that link to the files table (links, announcement, image and a bunch of third party modules) a bit faster....

cheer,

Erik

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

liorlustig — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:41:36 GMT

wow, Israel is number 3 !
cool, we are on the map !

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

J7Mitch — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:34:44 GMT

Good idea Joe. Lets start it over at DotNetNuke.com

This is a shift in focus of the main thread in my opinion, but I feel the validation debate is a very good one to have also.

Please make a reference to this thread there and come back to here to let us know where the thread is over there.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

jbrinkman — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:03:06 GMT

Since this is getting deeper than I want on this thread, I will start a new thread on the CSS optimization since I believe that it is worth its own discussion WRT site optimization.

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

ErikVB — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:57:37 GMT

trond.rud:
In USA alone, there is estimated 75 millions + users of internet that have dial up. Europe is in ever worst shape when it comes to xDSL or broadband.

Not sure where you get your figures, USA ranks 19th overall in broadband penetration, after many European and Asian countries:

(from http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0601/)

Cheers,

Erik

Re: Who's got the fastest DNN Site? Look'n for Speed!!

trond.rud — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:20:59 GMT

Remember that when using tables for design, first the data most travel across the web to your page viewer. Then the screen most render the content. Often, not always will tables have a heavier markup to begin with, hence larger page size. Which leads to longer loading time/transfer time. Then the page render. And yes tables also takes longer time to render then divs, and this will happens on every page load on your site.
With css the initial load will load the css file, then only load the markup for every other page your visitors view. The css get loaded from cache efter initial load. And an importent thing to remember, is that not all people have broadband today. In USA alone, there is estimated 75 millions + users of internet that have dial up. Europe is in ever worst shape when it comes to xDSL or broadband. So speed is actually a importent issue. Will you risk to loose visitor due to slow load? I would not, that is for sure.

What abouot people with bad eye sight? Will they be able to view your pages made with tables? Not likely, possible, but few actually are concerned about "those people".

And what about one issue that becomes more and more importent every day as the competitivness of the net rises. Search Engine Freindly?
One step closer was of course friendly URL. But why stop there, people have documented over and over again that there are advantages to be won by using css over tables when it comes to Search Engines. Why is this?

Well search engines does not crawl every line of every page on your site. Rather they crawl so and so many lines, and here is maybe one of the greatest advantage of them all. Using css you can float elements rather then having them flowing naturally down the markup. So that means you most valuable asset, the main content, can go as close as possible to the <body>. Which just might the edge you need to gain visitors that otherwise would not have found your site on page three of some searchword.

Reality might seem hash, but it is here, and things are happening now. I know lots of people choosing different tools (lamp cms's) to make up sites with, many of them listing MySQL and xhtml/css as the main reasson, and yes often in that particular order too. I belive if action is not taken towards true xhtml valid frameworks the community at large will be loosing out, as many valuable people will choose different tools.

One thing to remember is that where do we have the highest growth of net users today? Is it in the west? Nope it is in less developed countries, where they have far less resources availabe, and if they can save some bandwith they will. Because even the developers is often on a dial-up, and for sure their users are, and will be for several years.Would be a shame to lose those to other frameworks.
The OS is often as strong as the community standing behind it.