[xdebug-general] Re: Profiling a Joomla page -- huge mismatch between xdebug profiling information and actual performance

From: Tom Walter <tom.walter[@]hitwise.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:42:38 +1100

Alternatively, use Webgrind which reports the times correctly.

Florent Geffroy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wincachegrind's reported timings must be multiplied by 10. xDebug 2.0.0 RC4
> changed the way timings are reported ( seconds instead of tenth of
> seconds), and unfortunately Wincachegrind hasn't been updated for years.
>
> So if you see 1.5 seconds in Wincachegrind, it really is 15 seconds :)
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : xdebug-general-bounce[@]lists.xdebug.org
> [mailto:xdebug-general-bounce[@]lists.xdebug.org] De la part de Emiliano Heyns
> Envoy : lundi 30 mars 2009 18:03
> : A Paella
> Cc : xdebug-general[@]lists.xdebug.org
> Objet : [xdebug-general] Re: Profiling a Joomla page -- huge mismatch
> between xdebug profiling information and actual performance
>
> I'm using wincachegrind, currently, but I have a linux system at home
> I could use for other clients. How so? Would different data be
> reported by different viewers?
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Emiliano Heyns
>
> On 30 mrt 2009, at 17:43, A Paella <apaella[@]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Wich client are you using to visualize the cachegrind file?
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Emiliano Heyns
>> <Emiliano.Heyns[@]iris-advies.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We're trying to find out why our pages are loading so slow (12-13
>>> seconds),
>>> so we've ran xdebug against it, which is showing that the page
>>> executes in
>>> 1.5 seconds. It's not a network delay, as we've loaded this page
>>> from the
>>> console of the webserver itself, using lynx (so no javascript, css
>>> or images
>>> causing the slowdown, either). The slowdown appears to be at the
>>> "tail" of
>>> the request, since the timestamp for the request in the apache log
>>> and the
>>> timestamp of the xdebug output file are the same. Does anyone have
>>> any idea
>>> where else we might look?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Emile
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 31 2009 - 00:42:51 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 25 2018 - 06:00:04 BST