Why is Revoloution so slow?

I don't think it is only about bad/good hosting, I can see a big difference in speed between Evolution and Revolution even in localhost on a brand new computer, i7-2630QM, 8GB RAM.

Well, i have to admit that s Modx Rev it´s a bit slower... if we compare with Evolution. But, in my case i just had problems in a local server...
I use for production sites a shared hosting and i never had problems with Modx Rev speed!!

I wonder if making an addon for firefox that "plugs in" to the manager interface would speed things up on the development side. While the manager would be fully functional without it, a browser addon might be able to cache some of the processes locally that takes so long to transfer over the web. I don't know the first thing about how to build a browser addon or if the possible speed gain would be worth the effort to build.

I gained quite a bit of speed on localhost by updating XAMPP, though it's still slower than working on a live site at Bluehost (http://bit.ly/Hb5CAY).

Bob's Guides on Revo there is fairly snappy once the cache fills in despite all the optimizing I have yet to do. There are *many* separate JS and CSS files files, no CSS sprites, no image optimization, no accelerator, etc., etc.. I haven't even minimized the JS. -- someday.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE, PLEASE specify the version of MODX you are using.
MODX info for everyone: http://bobsguides.com/modx.html

As it was already mentioned, there can be many reasons for a poor MODX frontpage or backend performance.

I think it would be VERY helpful, if we had something like a benchmark plugin that measures the execution time for some backend and/or frontend related things.

As it goes with benchmarks, sometimes they can be misleading or wrong but from my point of view having a tool to measure things and to compare them against other things is a good thing.

Along with some background data (php and mysql Version, etc.) a benchmark extension could help us to track down performance issues as well as help us to compare server environments against each other.

If anyone is interested in callaborating with me on such a project, send me a pm.

Regards,

pepebe

[ed. note: pepebe last edited this post 14 years, 4 months ago.]

Hi There,

I'm looking for some help with improving performance as well. I'm working on a site that's currently ready to go live but the client doesn't want to launch with the slow performance. The backend they can live with the speed, but the 3-6 second load times for simple front end pages just isn't acceptable. I've done my best to dig through all the forums and to apply as many of the optimizations as possible. I'm attaching a screen cap of firebug from a very simple contact page that has everything cached. The wait time of 4.17s is mind blowing, what in the world could it be waiting for?

Here are some details of environment:
MODX: 2.2.2pl
Host: Network Solutions
PHP: 5.3.8
MySQL: 5.0.91

Any help/tips would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Phill

@peelay don't know the answer to your problem, but ...

You could try adding a truly simple static page to your site (you know just plain old html in the root directory of the site) - so NOT in modx at all and check its wait time. You could recheck with a test file using the generated source code from your contact page -

On another note - a simple 350KB contact page? , and there seem to be two jquery-1.8.17.custom... files (different sizes) I'm guessing they must live in different places but perhaps they could be combined.

I did just notice that the MODX 2.2.2 Manager Login screen includes over 150KB of images - only a bit under 15% of the page load, but still 101KB for a washed out background image?? The two background images could disappear and save about 140KB

If you can't do without the pretty background images you could use "Squeezer" or "Pixelmator" on them The big image is 103KB - can be reduced by 60KB - or exported from Pixelmator as a jpeg and save an additional 15KB (75KB smaller @ 80% quality), similarly the 41KB form background png is 26KB after Squeezer does its magic.

So you can all the eye candy and the page load is reduced by almost 10% - still have to download ext-all.js, all 700KB of it - at least modern browsers cache it.

And there's over 200KB of css as well.

Of course now the heavy lifting is done we only(?) download about 250KB more for the actual manager page, and about 100KB or a little less to edit a resource/chunk/whatever

As usual YMMV this is a one off quick test of a 2.2.2 install

It wouldn't hurt to put in a feature request and/or pull request on github. I don't see any reason why they can't improve the image optimization.

There is not need to remove the background. The mistake is that it has been saved as PNG. If you save it as JPG with Adobe Fireworks, 95% of compression, the image file size become 24KB, and it's almost with the same quality. See attachment.