Jasmine - Slow response time, high CPU

[Plippers]

Hey Michael and team,

 

I have a question regarding Jasmine server.

I have accounts on Kobald and Echo as well, but they are fine.

First off, I'm not an optimisation nut or anything. Reliability and support are what I value in a host and that's why I'm with MDD.

 

 

However! Over the last few days, I have been doing some site optimisation/house cleaning. I've used Google Pagespeed Insights, GTMetrix, WebPageTest.org and Pingdom to do things like squish my images, and tidy up the code. But all of these services have been highly critical of my site's (on Jasmine) response time (usually around 1000ms).

I decided to dig a little deeper. First off, looking at MDD's public Pingdom, most servers (including my other two) are hovering around 200ms. Jasmine I have always thought has been a little higher than it's friends, but in the last few days seems unusually high (800-1000ms)?

 

I had a look in cPanel and over the last couple of days Jasmine's status page has been showing a CPU load in the mid-high 20's and fairly often into the 30's - I'm not sure if this is related to the response time? There have also been a couple of little blips with things like cPanel "named" service showing to be down and HTTP being down, although I call these blips as I didn't notice any significant downtime (a page refresh sorted it).

 

I guess what this post is alluding to is me asking if everything is OK with Jasmine? It's been rock solid on reliability which is my main want in a webhost, but it would be great if the response times (and hence my site speed scores) were on par with my sites on other servers.

If you need any sites to test / look at let me know. All the other stuff is either from my cPanel or the MDD Pingdom page.

 

Thanks for all your hard work guys.

[shpor]

I too have noticed slow response times on Jasmine. It seems to vary quite a bit. I also have checked the site with GTmetrix, Pingdom, etc. Plus I have looked at the Net panel in Firebug. The delay in loading (when there is one) is "Waiting for response from server" or "Time to first byte."

Sometimes the response is just fine, but other times it can take as long as 4 to 6 seconds or more for a page to load. I set up a very modest static HTML page for testing and saved the PDF from GTmetrix. It took 6.8 seconds for the page to load a total of 6.3 KB (html, css, js). That was the slowest. But three out of four times that I checked my homepage that day (Oct 28), GTmetrix reported it as slow loading.

Slow loading is not a rare occurrence. It is becoming more and more the norm it seems. I am considering switching to a premium hosting plan if necessary, but hopefully something else can be done to remedy the problem.

[Michael D.]

If you feel a server is having issues, by all means, open a ticket as that's the best way to get it addressed.

[Plippers]

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for replying. I posted publicly as I wanted to see if other Jasmine users would see this post and contribute their experiences on Jasmine. If it appeared that only I had the response time issues, I would open a ticket up for me or look deeper into my sites. However, if it is a Team Jasmine issue, I figured you would then have an area with user's feedback on Jasmine's performance. So far only shpor has the issue or has discovered the thread. But maybe it will help others who have been wondering why GTMetrix or Google doesn't like their site, and save you multiple tickets.

 

In the spirit of making this about all Jasmine users and not my GTMetrix woes, here is a screen grab of MDD's public Pingdom set in monthly view. Could you please comment on Jasmine's not insignificant difference in response time when compared to all other shared servers?

Thanks again for your time Mike. I have no other issues with Jasmine, I have had great uptime. I'm just hoping to get my server response times (and site scores) more in line with the sites I have on Echo and Kobald.

 

 

http://northcat.net/MDD-Public-Pingdom.png

 

 

http://northcat.net/MDD-Public-Pingdom-2.png

[Michael D.]

The short version is that not all checks are configured identically. Jasmine actually test loads a page on the server [which can take a half second depending on latency/how busy the checker is/how far the checker is] where as other checks are just a Ping.

 

A ping coming back at 100ms is fine depending on the distance where 400~500ms on a page load is fine as well.

 

In this case comparing the Pingdom metrics from Jasmine to the other servers is an apples to oranges comparison. I wish I could update Jasmine to be a ping for consistency but I can't do it without creating a whole new check and, as such, getting rid of all of Jasmine's history. I may just do this at midnight when the new month starts for consistency but will keep the old stats archived if possible.

[Michael D.]

I just discovered that our SSD Acceleration for Jasmine was not properly configured. I have adjusted the settings and Jasmine performance should improve over the next 4 hours.

[Michael D.]

It will take the server a few minutes to stabilize - I actually had to momentarily remove all acceleration to add it back properly.

[Michael D.]

The change was very beneficial [top graph]:

http://www.screen-shot.net/2014-11-02_0221.png

 

Everything should be faster and more reliably fast.

[shpor]

Thanks Mike! It's reassuring to know the problem has been resolved (even though I'm now happily zipping along on another server).