Users running a non-download version of Vanilla (pulled from github), on branch release/2019.016 or master from the last 2 weeks should upgrade to release/2019.017 or latest master for security reasons. Downloaded official open sources releases are not affected.

Some interesting statistic to think about regarding how Vanilla perform in various environment.

chanhchanh OngETC.com - CMS Researcher ✭✭
edited April 2014 in Feedback

I manage to patch Vanilla to make it to run from a network share and also able to relocate the "cache" and "library" folder to local hard drive while the Vanilla application is running from the network and collect some number to see how Vanilla perform under different condition.

Here are some number:

network only: 13.26'

network with cache on local: 10.25'

network with library on local: 7.96'

network with cache and library on local: 7.87'

local only: 3:32'

As you can see running from local is the fastest but there are instant that need to run on a network share. Putting "cache" and "library" make the most gain compare to just "cache" or just "library" or entirely on the network.

I hope you will find this number as interesting as I do.

Comments

  • R_JR_J Cheerleader & Troubleshooter Munich Moderator

    Are you sure about your test environment?

    network with library on local: 7.96'

    If I think about that, I would assume that you are measuring a request that goes like this:
    1. from your browser to a server not on your pc
    2. server has to pull the lib files from your localhost
    3. server sends back html to your pc

    If you look at this

    network only: 13.26'

    the requests would be
    1. from your browser to a server not on your pc
    2. server reads lib from its own HD
    3. server sends back html to your pc

    I can not believe that the 2. step can be faster if a remote server has to pull data from another server than where itself is located...
    ... and when writing that sentence, I have to admit that I cannot even imagine how this should work. Do use ftpfs or something like that? Or have I misinterpreted the above?


  • chanhchanh OngETC.com - CMS Researcher ✭✭
    edited April 2014

    The site is host on a Windows 2012 server that have a web site connect to a network share hosted on a big SAN but it should work the same way with Linux network share as well instead of connect to a local hard drive.

    The different between a network share and a local hard drive that the site is hosted on is the IO. On the network share it goes through the network card for the IO and the local hard drive go through the SATA card for IO.

  • R_JR_J Cheerleader & Troubleshooter Munich Moderator

    So you really believe that execution time is faster when libraries have to be loaded through network instead of simply being fetched from local HD?


  • chanhchanh OngETC.com - CMS Researcher ✭✭

    No, the site is on the network but the library and cache are move to the local hard drive to test out the performance gain that is the purpose of this exercise.

    The reason for doing this is to utilize the SAN storage benefit and backup and the faster IO for cache and library so in case something happen to the site just move to a different server setup the site, connection to the network share, copy the cache and library folder and the site is back up and running in no time.

Sign In or Register to comment.