[Sugar-devel] ASLO

[James Cameron]

On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:51:21PM +1000, Sam Parkinson wrote:
> NOTE: check out the cdn version of the site: http://aslo.cf/

Yes, much faster.  73.55 KB over 2.79 seconds cached, and about 300 KB
over 3.3 seconds not-cached.

> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:07 PM, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>     On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:58:17PM +1000, Sam Parkinson wrote:
>     > I added a blog within the aslo page. What do you think? (here is the
>     > url if you don't want to scroll up: http://128.199.197.37/ )
> 
>     I don't think a blog is needed there.
> 
> 
> OK, I probably needed to give that a bit of a rational.
> It would be nice to have a blog for a bit of editorial content on the ASLO.
> Many app stores have things like featured apps of the week and stuff and it
> would be nice to have that - I could help write some.
> It would be impossible to make it work for every sugar user (every lang...) but
> it would be nice for some users.

The needs of the few should not outweigh the needs of the many?  ;-)

Bringing in a blog feature at the same time as a redesign is a bit
confusing.

I didn't think activities.sugarlabs.org suffered any from not having a
blog or social aspect.

> > Make it faster, Make it faster.........
> 
> Thanks for the tips :)
> I have taken tried out many of them; and there has been noticeable improvements
> in speed (~311kb vs ~700kb).
> 
> I also got a (free) domain (freenom is a good site :P) and tried out
> cloudflare.  Try it out at http://aslo.cf/
> They have some pretty evil js compression which made it a lot faster - but
> since it broke some sloppy code I had to disable it - I will fix that so I can
> get REAL FAST JS!!!!!!
> Otherwise the performance is pretty similar (I think the biggest thing
> cloudflare does is merge js files automatically - which I am doing already).
> Supposedly clouldflare takes load off your server; I am waiting for my
> dashboard to update for stats though :)
> 
> I will look for some metrics, but maybe clouldflare could help take some of the
> load for the current aslo (17s load according to firefox) and www.sugarlabs.org
> (100% static = 100% cache-able)
> 
> 
> 
>     On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 09:10:10PM +1000, Sam Parkinson wrote:
>     >     But in a quick search I wasn't able to find what Flash is
>     >     actually being run.  Maybe it is something in persona.org.  Do
>     >     you really need to uyse persona.org?
>     >
>     > I think persona is a good login system for users since there is no
>     > confirm your email stuff.  For me, it provides valid email
>     > addresses, which is VERY useful.
> 
>     Okay, but it costs data and time.  In my latest test, it costs at
>     least 229 KB and 1.7 seconds to load.  While _you_ might want it, do
>     your needs need to be satisfied regardless of the impact on all your
>     users?
> 
> 
> OK, I will start writing a login system.
> I will try and make it integrate really well with sugar (read: lets hack browse
> activity to have 0-click logins).

I think you should step back and ask yourself why you want valid
e-mail addresses, and why you want to track what users do.  I would
prefer that this sort of tracking not be done by Sugar Labs unless
there is a clear need, actual usage and publishing of the data, and a
way to opt out.

>     >     - the slowest response of 1550 ms was from
>     >       aslo-bot-master.sugarlabs.org, and this large response time
>     >       persisted on repeated refreshes.
>     >
>     > Oh, that always hit the filesystem. I added a cache now.
> 
>     Did you measure the time?  It is 1446 ms now, hardly different from
>     before.  The filesystem is already cached by the operating system, so
>     adding a cache should have achieved nothing unless you were waiting
>     for a write to disk to complete.
> 
> 
> OMG. I see in firefox that about half of that time is DNS! It is on sugarlabs
> servers so maybe our dns is really bad!  I have no idea about this, maybe
> @Bernie will know?

I'm not seeing any significant DNS time.  I'm seeing 478ms waiting,
and 399ms receiving.  Where's the source for this bot?  Should it
instead be a static file that is updated when it needs to be?

>     >     - the web site depends on multiple servers, so the mean time between
>     >       failure (MTBF) is dramatically reduced.  See [1].
>     >
>     > Well, I think that splitting the servers is actually better.  Some
>     > things are served by reliable cdns (good).  But separating the
>     > non-essential bits (comments, recommendations) means that crashes
>     > there will not effect the essential bits (data.json or
>     > aslo-bot-master.sugarlabs.org)
> 
>     You're so brave.  But Sugar Labs has to be careful.  Careful web
>     design puts the whole content on reliable servers, but as few as
>     possible, and this results in web sites that continue to function
>     despite the various temporary problems that occur on the internet.
> 
>     Such problems are magnified in environments where Sugar is deployed;
>     saturated networks, low performance, failed server lookups, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you know a lot more about this that me; what do you recommend?

Host as much as possible on a single server.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/