SOLVED Performance issues on catalyst
-
-
- Alcides Fialho
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Thanks: 0
-
Hi there !
I've just made an clean installation of catalyst template using rocketlauncher (jommla 1.5.3) and than, because my home page was taking too long to load , I went to joomlaperformance.com and here is the result.
Total Results
Total HTTP Requests: 182
Total Size: 768772 bytes
Total Time: 24.864235 seconds
Object Totals
Type Number Size(bytes) Time (secs)
HTML 1 6024 24.864235
Images 167 625773 21.990699
Css 7 46278 1.177467
Scripts 7 90697 1.160903
Frames 0 n/a n/a
IFrames 0 n/a n/a
Grades
Type Your Value Recomnded Value Grade
InfoHTML Size 6kb 40kb Pass - OK
InfoTotal Size 751kb 100kb Fail
InfoTotal Requests 182 30 Fail
InfoGeneration Time 0.343741 1 second Pass - OK
InfoNumber Of Hosts 2 2 Pass - OK
InfoNumber Of Images 167 25 Fail
InfoSize Of Images 611kb 20kb Fail
InfoNumber Of CSS Files 7 2 Fail
InfoSize Of CSS Files 45kb 10kb Fail
InfoNumber Of Script Files 7 2 Fail
InfoSize Of Script Files 89kb 10kb Fail
InfoHTML Encoding Gzip Gzip Pass - OK
InfoValid Html Valid Valid Pass - OK
InfoFrames 0 0 Pass - OK
Does anyone knows how to imprrove the performance of the website using this template ? (182 http requests ? / 167 images ???) - Last Edit: 16 years 5 months ago by Alcides Fialho.
-
-
-
- Kate Brown
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Thanks: 0
-
We have identical problems. Have tried removing modules from the home page but still takes just as long.
If anyone can help with this I would be most grateful. - Last Edit: 16 years 1 month ago by Kate Brown.
-
-
-
- Alcides Fialho
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Thanks: 0
-
Well,
I've done some searching and this is what i've tried (without success).
Enabled cache via joomla admin
Activated GZIP compression
Added compression to the CSS files (it reduced 50% my CSS files size but did not improove the performance) - forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?t=45391
Added some indexes to the main tables in Joomla - www.joomlaperformance.com/articles/perfo...as_queries_4_14.html
(here I made some changes, since this query is for J 1.0* and I have 1.5.3)
Nevertheless all this It still take more than 20 sec to load the page.......
Can ANYONE help us out ?????????
-
-
-
- GollumX
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 2817
- Thanks: 0
- what do you get when you activate rhuk milky-way or beez?
- Say no to Internet Explorer 6.
twitter.com/mark_up
-
-
-
- Alcides Fialho
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Thanks: 0
-
See What I got !!!!! 17 sec less to load a page (changing to rhuk milky-way)
Total HTTP Requests: 54
Total Size: 133872 bytes
Total Time: 7.170362 seconds
ype Number Size(bytes) Time (secs)
HTML 1 11102 7.170362
Images 45 28512 5.535685
Css 6 18078 0.790236
Scripts 2 76180 0.475717
Frames 0 n/a n/a
IFrames 0 n/a n/a
With rhuk milky-way 7.170362 seconds, with catalyst 24.799293 seconds ???????
This is not normal !!!
-
-
-
- GollumX
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 2817
- Thanks: 0
-
I have not gone to investigate factors mentioned in that report, such as whether it is including all the images mentioned in the css file (despite them not all being loaded on the page) etc, but if in fact it is a "slower" template, you have no choice but to choose another or optimise it yourself.
Template developers, unfortunately, have to dumb things down because the majority of their customers aren't proficient with XHTML/CSS. Eg: creating css files that with two clicks in a compressor could be reduced to 30% of their size.
If RT compresses them, and performs all the other optimizations possible, they will need to double the time and money they currently spend supporting the templates, which would mean less time developing sexy templates.
So... if speed is critical for the end user; noobs should choose a fast template to start with (think pixel perfect and the GPL one), and those proficient or willing to face a learning curve should optimise the templates themselves.
Go to www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/index.html and find out what is causing the delay, then eliminate them one by one.
I also suggest developer.yahoo.com/yslow/ (requires Firebug) to help identify the bottlenecks.
Finally, I should mention for the benefit of those who have not chosen a template yet to use the demo to evaluate a template first. When viewing a template in the demo with Firefox, right click on the page and select This Frame>Show only this frame and then evaluate the template with the tools mentioned above.
The key choice is between form and function. Every website has different requirements, and you will have to make the necessary compromises, or learn to optimize it yourself to get the best of both worlds.
Cheers - Say no to Internet Explorer 6.
twitter.com/mark_up
-
-
-
- Alcides Fialho
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Thanks: 0
-
Well,
After all this I decided to do some light optimizations myself......
Nevertheless when you say ''Template developers, unfortunately, have to dumb things down because the majority of their customers aren't proficient with XHTML/CSS. Eg: creating css files that with two clicks in a compressor could be reduced to 30% of their size.
If RT compresses them, and performs all the other optimizations possible, they will need to double the time and money they currently spend supporting the templates, which would mean less time developing sexy templates.''
My opinion about this is that If a web designer delivers a beautiful website but it takes 30 secs to load....no one will buy it......so one of the most important web design project phases consists in ''get the best of both worlds'' - optimize - reduce waste.......
I'm a project manger for more than 7 years and to see someone telling ''If RT compresses them, and performs all the other optimizations possible, they will need to double the time and money they currently spend supporting the templates, which would mean less time developing sexy templates.'' this makes me sad (personal opinion) - we don't need quantity.....we need quality. If quality will take more time.......develop less templates....this means fidelize customers.......and positive publicity.
Well we could continue on with this discussion but I just wanted to show you my point of view.
By the way, after small changes in the catalyst template I reduced from 17.568 secs loading (ONLY HOME PAGE) to impressive 8.23 secs... - Last Edit: 16 years 5 months ago by Alcides Fialho.
-
-
-
- Andy Miller
- Preeminent Rocketeer
- Posts: 9919
- Thanks: 96
- Web Kahuna
- Why don't you outline the changes that you made, as this can only help others. Cheers.
-
-
-
- Alcides Fialho
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Thanks: 0
-
As I told you, light changes.....
These where the steps.
1 - Enabled cache via joomla admin
2 - Activated GZIP compression
3 - Added compression to the CSS and JS files (it reduced 50% my CSS) - forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?t=45391
4 - Added some indexes to the main tables in Joomla www.joomlaperformance.com/articles/perfo...as_queries_4_14.html
(here I made some changes, since this query is for J 1.0* and I have 1.5.3)
5 - installed http://xcache.lighttpd.net/ in my web server - this made my pages load 55% faster
6 - Took out from home page the header module (where you had the promo.png file - 136k )
7 - Reduced all the png files using firefox - reduced in total 93k
So as you can see nothing too much complicated.......since i'm not a programmer.......
-
-
-
- Terp
- Elite Rocketeer
- Posts: 1720
- Thanks: 23
-
...so sounds like just a change or two (compressed template CSS/and removed header module) to the template, and the rest were all exogenous to RT?
You could gzip, implement heavy caching, tweak Joomla, reduce pngs for ANY template out there with similar outcomes.
It seems the lion share of tweaks were unrelated to the template, no? 
-
Time to create page: 0.063 seconds