Skip to:
Content
Pages
Categories
Search
Top
Bottom

2 Suggestions: Performance Issues and Combine testbp.org and buddypress.org

  • Avatar of Asynaptic
    Asynaptic
    Participant

    @synaptic

    Buddypress.org is where we gather to discuss, exchange ideas, feedback and to show off buddypress as a working ‘demo’ to the world.

    So why have a separate site like testbp.org? That just makes things more complicated and confusing for both users and developers who are already stretched thin.

    Why not combine the two? that is just have one site that accomplishes the purpose of the two present sites?

    Hopefully that will also resolve the performance issues with buddypress.org:

    http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120720_3N_TDF/

    It takes 7 seconds to load the homepage! that is simply unacceptable guys. We’re trying to show off to the world here and win accolades as well as new users and installs. That’s no way to do it!

    there seems to be a bottleneck at the DNS level:
    http://www.intodns.com/buddypress.org

    testbp.org is a little bit better at 3.3 seconds but it can be improved to sub 2 seconds:

    http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120720_0E_TC8/

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Avatar of Asynaptic
    Asynaptic
    Participant

    @synaptic

    internal pages are also very slow:

    http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120720_MQ_TYJ/

    Avatar of John James Jacoby
    John James Jacoby
    Keymaster

    @johnjamesjacoby

    Merging the two won’t happen.

    It’s a horrible idea to test with live data. The point of keeping them separate is to keep them separate, so the development team has a safe and disconnected place to deploy code with little repercussion.

    The slow load times likely have to do with a recent server migration, and we’re looking into what’s up. I appreciate your investigation into what’s going on where.

    Avatar of Asynaptic
    Asynaptic
    Participant

    @synaptic

    re merger, fair enough

    re performance, the bottleneck isn’t DNS but it does occur right at the start, the waterfall shows:

    “Time to First Byte: 4388 ms”

    And “Start Render 5.325s” that is way way off

    If that didn’t occur you’d have a more reasonable, but not yet optimized, load time of 2.64 seconds

    as way of comparison, take a look at a site that does everything it can to optimize load time:

    http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120722_R5_MJ6/1/details/

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.