New Design Performance is Sluggish

spider-t

Hi All,

I have told myself a story about the new sluggishness that smugmug is displaying in the past few weeks. I have decided it is all the excited users working on getting their fancy new sites ready to unveil causing a bunch of new traffic that doesn't normally happen.

With this story comes the hope that the sluggishness will subside eventually and my site will feel zippy again. Or at least that someone who knows about such things is looking into uncovering the bottlenecks in the new design so that it will be back up to speed in the future.

The sluggeshness is noticeable from several computers, several different locations and several different times of day, so I know it's universal. It takes the form of page load delays and image loading delays.

I'm happy to be patient, I appreciate the enormity of the release you have just pushed out, as long as I know someone is working on it.

Someone is working on it, right?

thanks!!
Trish

PhotoDavid78

I haven't experienced sluggishness at all in fact I have noticed a speed increase since switching to the new Mug.

macromeister

It has been pretty slow over the past few days. If you have a high-speed line you may not notice much difference, but I'm out in the sticks...

spider-t

Interesting your experiencing improved performance. I wonder what is different about your view and mine. Perhaps I have too many pictures on my site. I've been with smugmug for 10 years or so and don't do much to clean up my archives after I have delivered my images.

I just looked up my stats (see attached). I'm not sure if this is the accurate way to see how many pictures are stored. Just searching for clues. Not even sure where my account falls in the range. Maybe it's not so many pictures.

Another idea is that I haven't unveiled yet, so maybe the preview is quite a bit slower than the live site.

I'm almost ready. Just a couple more things to figure out before I go live.

thanks,
Trish

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

I haven't experienced sluggishness at all in fact I have noticed a speed increase since switching to the new Mug.

PhotoDavid78

spider-t wrote: »

Interesting your experiencing improved performance. I wonder what is different about your view and mine. Perhaps I have too many pictures on my site. I've been with smugmug for 10 years or so and don't do much to clean up my archives after I have delivered my images.

I just looked up my stats (see attached). I'm not sure if this is the accurate way to see how many pictures are stored. Just searching for clues. Not even sure where my account falls in the range. Maybe it's not so many pictures.

Another idea is that I haven't unveiled yet, so maybe the preview is quite a bit slower than the live site.

I'm almost ready. Just a couple more things to figure out before I go live.

thanks,
Trish

I'm only using 56 gig so maybe but i'm not sure that is the reason

mbonocore

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

I'm only using 56 gig so maybe but i'm not sure that is the reason

That shouldn't be the reason, unless you are going into galleries within the organizer that have hundreds of photos, or setting up multiple photo or gallery blocks that are pulling lots of data. That is just standard web behavior. The more content to load, the longer it takes. But, with that said, we are ALWAYS finding ways to improve performance...we will never settle and say it's good enough.

macromeister

mbonocore wrote: »

That shouldn't be the reason, unless you are going into galleries within the organizer that have hundreds of photos, or setting up multiple photo or gallery blocks that are pulling lots of data. That is just standard web behavior. The more content to load, the longer it takes. But, with that said, we are ALWAYS finding ways to improve performance...we will never settle and say it's good enough.

Is it possible that now Smug is more picture-centric it's having to load more image data per page on the gallery pages? The same thing seemed to happen on FLICKR back in May when they revamped their system with more and larger images. Lots of people complained about sluggish performance, except those with a fast internet connection.

spider-t

images not loading
a client just send me this screenshot. she was complaining that some of the pictures just showed her black screens when she clicked on them. when i couldn't reproduce it, she sent me this screenshot. i hate seeing this.

trish

macromeister wrote: »

Is it possible that now Smug is more picture-centric it's having to load more image data per page on the gallery pages? The same thing seemed to happen on FLICKR back in May when they revamped their system with more and larger images. Lots of people complained about sluggish performance, except those with a fast internet connection.

LPC

Much faster and slicker for me too. A noticeable improvement.

tobeme

I am experiencing the sluggish situation as well. My users told me videos take forever to load and pictures too take longer time to load.

BTW - I am still using the legacy smugmug.

mbonocore

tobeme wrote: »

I am experiencing the sluggish situation as well. My users told me videos take forever to load and pictures too take longer time to load.

BTW - I am still using the legacy smugmug.

We are seeing fast performance on many sites we view a day, both legacy and new.

everydaymemories

I have 139,000 files / 658 GB on my SmugMug and my site is speedy. I have cable internet, fortunately. And I have unveiled. The only thing that might have been slow was video-loading, but that's not an issue for me, because the only person who sees my videos is my mom, and she downloads them before viewing them.

mbonocore

spider-t wrote: »

a client just send me this screenshot. she was complaining that some of the pictures just showed her black screens when she clicked on them. when i couldn't reproduce it, she sent me this screenshot. i hate seeing this.

trish

Hi Trish,

I am really sorry to see that....I tested a couple times on different browsers and they all worked as desired and loaded fast.