Microsoft Content Management Server - Acceptable Performance.

Author

Acceptable Performance.

Kyong Kwak

2004-11-24, 5:52 pm

Hi all,

We're developing a web site/application and wanted to know what numbers
are acceptable for performance.

I've got a dev box running dual 3.2 Xeon HT, windows server 2003, 1 GB
RAM. It has the CMS and the application db (SQL Server 2k) on the same box.

I'm using ACT and some of the pages are loading pretty slow due to nav
and breadcrumb and such.. but just wanted to know what my "target"
should be.. I'm fairly new to web development so I'm not sure what the
specs should be..

I've been testing with 300 users and getting around 12.8 secs per page..
With 600 users getting about half the speed.. so it's consistent in
terms of performance degredation..

any word on what might be acceptable? I'm sure not too many users will
stick around 30+ secs to see a page.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving!

2004-11-25, 7:46 am

Hello Kyong,

You'll prob get a ton of different responses here. Frankly, 12 seconds per page is unacceptable to me. I've always understood (as have my coworkers) that you lose your audience to frustration if it takes 8s+ to load a page. So, if it were my site, I'd
say you need ot look at the performance of it. Try hitting a single template that doesn't do much... what do you get?

What's your expected load on the site? It seems to me that your hardware is in pretty good shape... having CMS and SQL on the same box isn't ideal (for security and performance reasons), but still feasible.

Also, use ACT locally on the server (to eliminate network slowdowns) and then try it from another machine inside and finally outside your network to give you more info to analyze.

-AC
[www.andrewconnell.com]

> Hi all,
>
> We're developing a web site/application and wanted to know what
> numbers are acceptable for performance.
>
> I've got a dev box running dual 3.2 Xeon HT, windows server 2003, 1 GB
> RAM. It has the CMS and the application db (SQL Server 2k) on the
> same box.
>
> I'm using ACT and some of the pages are loading pretty slow due to nav
> and breadcrumb and such.. but just wanted to know what my "target"
> should be.. I'm fairly new to web development so I'm not sure what
> the specs should be..
>
> I've been testing with 300 users and getting around 12.8 secs per
> page.. With 600 users getting about half the speed.. so it's
> consistent in terms of performance degredation..
>
> any word on what might be acceptable? I'm sure not too many users
> will stick around 30+ secs to see a page.
>
> Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving!
>

Kyong Kwak

2004-11-29, 5:52 pm

Sadly no one else responded. Anyway, wanted to know what would be
average for a system like that? what *should* be the proper repond time
given 300 users? the hardware is pretty up-to-date.. I'm actually not
sure where a system like that should take you..

I've been testing on serval pages ( mostly on SSL ) and some are getting
as high as 40+ secs.. it is retrieving lots of data from the database..
should improve after we index the table a bit..

but I'm just trying to see if it is near the "good enough" field..

thanks!

AC wrote:
> Hello Kyong,
>
> You'll prob get a ton of different responses here. Frankly, 12 seconds per page is unacceptable to me. I've always understood (as have my coworkers) that you lose your audience to frustration if it takes 8s+ to load a page. So, if it were my site, I'
d say you need ot look at the performance of it. Try hitting a single template that doesn't do much... what do you get?
>
> What's your expected load on the site? It seems to me that your hardware is in pretty good shape... having CMS and SQL on the same box isn't ideal (for security and performance reasons), but still feasible.
>
> Also, use ACT locally on the server (to eliminate network slowdowns) and then try it from another machine inside and finally outside your network to give you more info to analyze.
>
> -AC
> [www.andrewconnell.com]
>
>
>
>