YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Tech talk:Site slowdown

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search

Site slowdown[edit]

Swept from en:pub:

Site painfully slow -- saving edit sometimes takes minutes or even times out on now. Is this due to increased traffic or something else? Maybe Webby Award traffic? Anything being done to fix this? :-) --Rogerhc 17:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I haven't noticed serious speed problems lately, though of course it's never as fast as it should be. :) The site's traffic stats [1] don't include the past week yet, but I don't see a huge spike since the Webby awards :( so I don't think we can blame any speed problems on that... just on the ongoing increase in traffic (roughly doubling since a year ago). - Todd VerBeek 17:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I've noticed serious performance issues too. We're talking ten to thirty seconds to load a page, like recent changes or editing an article. Jordanmills 20:14, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I have definitely noticed this problem as well on multiple pcs and internet connections, although I can't say it has taken full minutes to load any pages. On shoddier wireless connections, I time out often for Wikitravel, but not for other sites. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 22:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep me too... not painfully slow usually, but I've certainly noticed a fairly big difference in the last few weeks or so. – cacahuate talk 03:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, actually sometimes it's painful – cacahuate talk 02:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Another me too. It can be several seconds to get to the home page. I usually go though my watch list looking at differences, which can also take several seconds per page. - Davidbstanley 04:46, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm in China with a fairly slow connection. The site has usually worked reasonably well for me, but often quite slow. Lately it seems worse, but not by much. Pashley 06:07, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
So, I think there are two issues: one is that we've added Google Analytics code to each page, and I think that's why you get a delay when the page is almost loaded. I'll see if I can make that work better, and if not we can remove it.
I vote for getting rid of Google Analytics. I have noticed pages sticking on that on this and other sites. Davidbstanley 17:03, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Second, we've got a lot of traffic. Internet Brands has an account with Akamai and we're looking into offloading the work of distributing images and static files (.js, .css) through their very fast caching network. That should probably perk up the response time quite a bit.
After that is in place, we're going to look at throwing some hardware at the site to speed it up. --Evan 12:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I have discovered that throwing a hammer at a server tends not to produce the desired performance improvement. But then, I may not have hit the right spot; optimization is tricky work. - Todd VerBeek 13:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

shared:Wikitravel Shared:30 May 2007cacahuate talk 21:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Site still s l o w ....... is there hope? --Rogerhc 19:20, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Page saves are still s l o w, 10 seconds slow. Am I the only one? --Rogerhc 02:44, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Nope, you're not alone... still crawling for me... getting a little annoying... ok, a lot annoying... – cacahuate talk 02:57, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
On the upside, the slow site speed is teaching me to be real proficient at tabbed browsing—I've got 15 tabs going in this window right now! --Peter Talk 03:38, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I've recently begun to see significant slowdowns, and most of the time the browser status bar indicates it is waiting on, so that subdomain server may be a source of some problems. Assuming that server is serving images, are there any images on the pages without width & height values specified? If the slowdown is lack of images, rather than lack of HTML, adding a width & height tag to all images will allow the page to load even without having downloaded all files. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:37, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Mediawiki specifies height/width attributes on any images embedded in articles, so that's not what browsers are waiting on. is being used to store CSS, JavaScript, and image files, which Akamai distributed caching would presumably help. - Todd VerBeek 07:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it's images in articles that are the problem - as you've indicated Mediawiki handles those properly. However, the "Powered by Mediawiki" image in the footer as well as the "Creative Commons" image both appear to be missing width and height tags - I don't know whether those are a problem or not, but adding width & height shouldn't hurt. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
It was something that changed recently (in the last couple months), it hasn't been an ongoing problem... I'm guessing maybe it has to do with Evan's statement above that Google Analytics was added to each page? If that is indeed the problem, I vote for getting rid of it, at least for now until other measures are taken to counteract the slowdown... – cacahuate talk 14:22, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Let's see how long this edit takes to save... 17 seconds! Ouch! --Rogerhc 19:34, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Let's see how long this edit takes to save... over 60 seconds! IB, we have a problem. --Rogerhc 13:18, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Working fine for me today and yesterday? One thing to beware of: if the admins edit the MediaWiki: system messages, the system grinds to a halt for a few minutes as all the caches get purged, but this is just a temporary issue that fixes itself. Jpatokal 22:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I get what Roger describes routinely. This edit took 45 seconds to save for me. That's normal for me for the last couple of months. -- Colin 22:40, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Very slow at the moment. The main page took 50 seconds to load just now. Sometimes it gets faster after that, but not always. This edit took more than 60 seconds. Davidbstanley 03:00, 27 December 2007 (EST)
The site speed is so bad that it took me a full 20 minutes to navigate to this page and add this complaint. I can no longer perform my routine tasks as a contributor and as an administrator because of this problem, and will simply give up until this is fixed. I'm not sure if a bug report has been filed (I couldn't find one), but it begs the question whether it's even worth doing so, given the abysmal closure rate of bugs. There has been talk of getting new servers in place or something like that, but there's a lot of talk about fixing things on this site and roughly zero action from IB. --Peter Talk 04:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I have lately often walked away to go do something else due to the simple fact that WT was just frustratingly slow. Today however it seems to work fine for me --Nick 05:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Agreed. There's no site I visit that's consistently as bad as WT, and it's not improving. If said new servers are costly, put ads up and use a portion of those revenues to buy the servers. Keep the rest and throw an IB pizza party. Should work out for all involved. Gorilla Jones 08:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)