I have tried to implement AsNoTracking from your Nop to all services. Every query to fetch read-only data is changed to TableNoTracking. Howver the memory usage is still not much changed as in http://blog.staticvoid.co.nz/2012/4/2/entity_framework_and_asnotracking
Btw, i found an interesting Ioc Benchmark http://www.palmmedia.de/blog/2011/8/30/ioc-container-benchmark-performance-comparison
and Tips to improve Entity Framework Performance
http://rahulgbhatia.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/tips-to-improve-entity-framework-performance/
and Performance Considerations (Entity Framework) http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/cc853327%28v=vs.100%29.aspx
Minimum memory requirements for Nopcommerce
- 297
- 2733
- 6/16/2011
- Vietnam
could we try out Pre-Generate Views to Improve Query Performance ?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb896240%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
Before the Entity Framework can execute a query against a conceptual model or save changes to the data source, it must generate a set of local query views to access the database. The views are part of the metadata which is cached per application domain. If you create multiple object context instances in the same application domain, they will reuse views from the cached metadata rather than regenerating them. Because view generation is a significant part of the overall cost of executing a single query, the Entity Framework enables you to pre-generate these views and include them in the compiled project.
there's a tool http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/18a7db90-6705-4d19-9dd1-0a6c23d0751f to help generating those view.
and http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/38920/Performance-and-the-Entity-Framework shows how greatly the writer reduces the startup time by using pre-generated view
and http://blog.3d-logic.com/2013/12/14/using-pre-generated-views-without-having-to-pre-generate-views-ef6/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb896240%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
Before the Entity Framework can execute a query against a conceptual model or save changes to the data source, it must generate a set of local query views to access the database. The views are part of the metadata which is cached per application domain. If you create multiple object context instances in the same application domain, they will reuse views from the cached metadata rather than regenerating them. Because view generation is a significant part of the overall cost of executing a single query, the Entity Framework enables you to pre-generate these views and include them in the compiled project.
there's a tool http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/18a7db90-6705-4d19-9dd1-0a6c23d0751f to help generating those view.
and http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/38920/Performance-and-the-Entity-Framework shows how greatly the writer reduces the startup time by using pre-generated view
and http://blog.3d-logic.com/2013/12/14/using-pre-generated-views-without-having-to-pre-generate-views-ef6/
- 40
- 328
- 7/14/2009
- China
After applied Commit 39e318610dad:Source code refactoring and performance optimization. Splitted CatalogController to two new ones - CatalogController and ProductController.
I found memory requirement reduced, now, even no active connections the memory used less than 400M each instance, before that it needed less than 600M.
Do you find it?
I found memory requirement reduced, now, even no active connections the memory used less than 400M each instance, before that it needed less than 600M.
Do you find it?
Team Member
- 16612
- 155815
- 10/22/2008
- Armenia
trendline wrote:
I would also recommend you playing with the entire upcoming version 3.40 (not just applying of two commits). I presume it could be even faster with less memory usage
After applied Commit 39e318610dad:Source code refactoring and performance optimization. Splitted CatalogController to two new ones - CatalogController and ProductController.
I found memory requirement reduced, now, even no active connections the memory used less than 400M each instance, before that it needed less than 600M.
Do you find it?
I found memory requirement reduced, now, even no active connections the memory used less than 400M each instance, before that it needed less than 600M.
Do you find it?
I would also recommend you playing with the entire upcoming version 3.40 (not just applying of two commits). I presume it could be even faster with less memory usage
- 40
- 328
- 7/14/2009
- China
a.m. wrote:
Yes, I update my application follow up your updates on codeplex, it is running the latest update from 3.40, after applied the commits which I said before it get an obvious improvement, I have been watching the memory usage changes after each update.
After applied Commit 39e318610dad:Source code refactoring and performance optimization. Splitted CatalogController to two new ones - CatalogController and ProductController.
I found memory requirement reduced, now, even no active connections the memory used less than 400M each instance, before that it needed less than 600M.
Do you find it?
I would also recommend you playing with the entire upcoming version 3.40 (not just applying of two commits). I presume it could be even faster with less memory usage
I found memory requirement reduced, now, even no active connections the memory used less than 400M each instance, before that it needed less than 600M.
Do you find it?
I would also recommend you playing with the entire upcoming version 3.40 (not just applying of two commits). I presume it could be even faster with less memory usage
Yes, I update my application follow up your updates on codeplex, it is running the latest update from 3.40, after applied the commits which I said before it get an obvious improvement, I have been watching the memory usage changes after each update.
- 40
- 328
- 7/14/2009
- China
XtremeCommerce wrote:
Great! it is currently using around 400MB on my server, it is very good if new 3.40 could using memory around 200MB.
Hi Guys
I have setup a 3.40 on our server with the mini-profiler on, it is currently using around 200MB and loading very quickly
you can see it here : http://nop34themes.co.uk/
And instead of using javascript bundling, i have just combined the javascript into one file.
I have setup a 3.40 on our server with the mini-profiler on, it is currently using around 200MB and loading very quickly
you can see it here : http://nop34themes.co.uk/
And instead of using javascript bundling, i have just combined the javascript into one file.
Great! it is currently using around 400MB on my server, it is very good if new 3.40 could using memory around 200MB.
MVP
- 594
- 6640
- 5/16/2009
- United Kingdom
Hi Guys
I have updated the 3.40 version on the server today, memory usage is now down too 165 - 175MB, I have also added more products and now there are a 1000 items on there, and page load is approx 250ms, CPU appears to be approx 2% once page is cached, and 4% on first hit.
Please test it here :http://www.nop34themes.co.uk/
I have updated the 3.40 version on the server today, memory usage is now down too 165 - 175MB, I have also added more products and now there are a 1000 items on there, and page load is approx 250ms, CPU appears to be approx 2% once page is cached, and 4% on first hit.
Please test it here :http://www.nop34themes.co.uk/
Team Member
- 16612
- 155815
- 10/22/2008
- Armenia
XtremeCommerce wrote:
Thanks a lot. I would also recommend you going to admin area > configuration > catalog settings > and enabling the first 5 settings (1, 2 anf 5 are the most significant ones). It can significantly improve performance. For most stores it'll be acceptable. Please test it out.
P.S. We also have an internal site for BETA testing of 3.40 - http://demo-340.nopcommerce.com/. Please have a look
...
Thanks a lot. I would also recommend you going to admin area > configuration > catalog settings > and enabling the first 5 settings (1, 2 anf 5 are the most significant ones). It can significantly improve performance. For most stores it'll be acceptable. Please test it out.
P.S. We also have an internal site for BETA testing of 3.40 - http://demo-340.nopcommerce.com/. Please have a look
MVP
- 594
- 6640
- 5/16/2009
- United Kingdom
Hi Andrei
I have already done that, but Interestingley I have also tried with and without CSS bundling and there has been no difference in resource usage, i have also combined all the standard scripts into one file rather than use a script to do it.
This is a great achievement though, because the memory usage has not been this low for a very long time.
I have already done that, but Interestingley I have also tried with and without CSS bundling and there has been no difference in resource usage, i have also combined all the standard scripts into one file rather than use a script to do it.
This is a great achievement though, because the memory usage has not been this low for a very long time.