This year, Performance Planet did an advent calendar again, just like last year. I was also invited to write an article, and gladly accepted the invitation. I wrote about WPO Analytics, which is what my master thesis is about. It’s quite strange to see your name appear among the big names of Yahoo, Facebook and Google, but at the same time it’s reassuring that my efforts have not been in vain.
The following article is a 1:1 copy of my “WPO Analytics” article for the 2010 Performance Calendar.
Web performance monitoring services such as Gomez, Keynote, Webmetrics, Pingdom, Webpagetest (which was also featured in last year’s web performance advent calendar) and recent newcomers such as Yottaa are all examples of synthetic performance monitoring (SPM) tools.
In this article, I will explain the advantages of the opposite approach: real performance monitoring (RPM). This approach also has its disadvantages, but these are swiftly evaporating. The RPM approach will be explained using Steve Souders’ Episodes.
It will become clear that RPM will win of SPM in the long run. The most important missing link to that end, is a tool to analyze the data collected by RPM. And that is exactly what I’m working on for my master thesis, which is titled “Web Performance Optimization: Analytics”.
Synthetic Performance Monitoring
The ‘synthetic’ in SPM is there because performance isn’t being measured from real end users, but instead by the SPM provider’s servers. These simulated users access your site either periodically or randomly. Typically, Internet Explorer 6 or 7 are used, and sometimes Firefox. And all of that in a very controlled environment. That’s hardly a typical end user. It should already be clear that this is not realistic.
That doesn’t mean the data generated by SPM is useless, far from it, it’s still a meaningful reference. But it just doesn’t reflect the real-world page loading performance.
Typically, you record a “test script” that follows a certain path through your web site, and the time it takes to navigate along this path, is how performance is being monitored. This means that if you want to switch to another SPM provider, you will have to record your test scripts again, because they don’t use an interoperable standard.
Real Performance Monitoring
On the other end of the spectrum, there’s RPM, which requires slightly deeper integration with your website, but with great rewards: actual site visitors’ page load times are measured and collected for analysis. This means that we’re able to see exactly how the real end user perceives the loading of the page! (Or at least a very close approximation.)
This downside will fade away as internet uses move on towards browsers that support the Web Timing spec (which has recently been renamed to Navigation Timing). This API is currently supported by Internet Explorer 9 (since the third platform preview), by Google Chrome 6 and up, most likely it will be supported by the next major version of Safari (because both Chrome and Safari rely on WebKit), but unfortunately support is nowhere to be found in Firefox. Most likely, it won’t even be included in Firefox 4! This is very unfortunate — it will probably slow down adoption of the Web Timing/Navigation Timing spec.
Since this is the only way we can achieve an interoperable, reliable, exact manner to gather performance metrics, this is most unfortunate for the emerging WPO industry.
(If you’re reading this, you’re most likely running the most up-to-date version of your favorite browser. Well then, there are two demos available. Firefox & Safari users will have to switch to either Chrome or the Internet Explorer 9 preview for just a minute.)
Now, if we could standardize on an interoperable RPM standard, then the SPM providers could add support for visualizing and analyzing RPM. Not only would we get more realistic performance numbers, we would also avoid lock-in!
The first tool I know of that implements RPM, is the now dead Jiffy. Fairly soon after that, in July 2008, there was Steve Souders’ Episodes (version 1), which was accompanied by an excellent white paper. Episodes is superior because it is a lighter weight implementation.
I strongly recommend reading that white paper, since it covers all aspects of Episodes, including the benefits for all involved parties — it’s written in a very accessible manner, in plain English instead of awful academic English.
Here’s a brief, slightly reformatted excerpt about the goals and vision for Episodes, which highlight why Episodes is a great starting point for RPM:
The goal is to make Episodes the industrywide solution for measuring web page load times. This is possible because Episodes has benefits for all the stakeholders:
- Web developers only need to learn and deploy a single framework.
- Tool developers and web metrics service providers get more accurate timing information by relying on instrumentation inserted by the developer of the web page.
- Browser developers gain insight into what is happening in the web page by relying on the context relayed by Episodes.
Most importantly, users benefit by the adoption of Episodes. They get a browser that can better inform them of the web page’s status for Web 2.0 apps. Since Episodes is a lighter weight design than other instrumentation frameworks, users get faster pages. As Episodes makes it easier for web developers to shine a light on performance issues, the end result is an Internet experience that is faster for everyone.
About a month ago, Steve released Episodes version 2, for which the source code is now available (Apache license 2.0). Some problems have been fixed and most notably, the page load start time is now retrieved using the Web Timing API whenever available, or even the Google Toolbar when it is installed (both offer increased accuracy).
Please join us at the Episodes Google Group, to help move Episodes forward!
While it is not entirely comparable with Episodes, Yahoo’s Boomerang, released in June 2010, is also very interesting. It’s less focused on measuring the various stages of loading a web page: it also has the ability to estimate the latency from the end user to the web server (fairly accurately) and the throughput (the author calls this “bandwidth”, but that’s wrong — these two terms are incorrectly being used interchangeably by most people nowadays, probably due to broadband internet providers’ marketing).
It would be nice to see latency and throughput estimation become an optional part of Episodes. Boomerang’s other features can be classified as duplicate functionality of Episodes. We should standardize on a single library, or at least ensure interoperability.
Drupal Episodes module
This section shows how one can take advantage of a framework’s existing infrastructure to solidly and rapidly integrate Episodes.
Drupal.behaviors. Each behavior will then be called when the DOM has loaded, but also when new DOM elements are added to the page via AJAX callbacks. All one has to do, is call
Drupal.attachBehaviors() after the new content has been added to the document.
Then the obvious way to integrate Episodes with Drupal is overriding
For a screenshot of the Firebug add-on, see the attached figure: “Episodes add-on for Firebug”.
Timings collected by Episodes (and similarly by Boomerang) are sent to a beacon URL, in the query string. The web server that serves this beacon URL then logs the requested URL in its log file. It’s this log file that you can now use to analyze the data collected by Episodes.
Because once you’ve collected the timing data, you cannot magically improve the performance of your website. You have to understand it, interpret it, to find causes of performance problems. Ideally, there would be a tool that is smart enough to automatically pinpoint causes of slow page loads for you:
CSSepisode is slow” — detect slow episodes
http://example.com/some-pageis slow in Belgium” — detect geographical problems
loadCarouselepisode is slow in Belgium for visitors that use the browser Firefox 3” — detect complex problems
That’s exactly what I’m trying to achieve with my master thesis (in case you’re interested: I’ve already completed the literature study). The goal is to build something similar to Google Analytics, but then for page loading performance (WPO), instead of just page loads. I’m using advanced data mining techniques (actually, data stream mining and anomaly detection) to find patterns in the data (i.e. generate pintpoint causes of slow page loads, like the examples above) as well as OLAP techniques (data cube) to be able to quickly browse the collected data, to also allow for human analysis.
All code and documents are publicly available.
- page A needs
z.css; these are combined into
- page B needs
y.css; these are combined into xy.css When a user now visits page A, he downloads
xyz.css. If he subsequently visits page B, he still has to download
xy.css. Because the framework wasn’t smart enough to just use
xyz.css. More complex examples are possible where the solution isn’t this simple (e.g. if page B also has a
w.css file), but it’s not hard to see the problem at hand. A better solution in this case would have been to let page A serve
z.css, and page B
xy.css would already be in the user’s browser cache, and one less request would have been necessary.
By using Episodes’ log data, we could automatically calculate the most optimal bundles!
Much work is left to be done in the field of Web Performance Optimization. One of the most interesting and promising new developments, is the widespread integration of Real Performance Monitoring — preferably by developing an industry standard, likely by starting from the Web Timing spec and the Episodes library. What is still badly needed, is a WPO analytics tool that provides easy (and as much automated as possible) insight in the data collected by RPM.
I hope that this article will have piqued the interest of at least of some of the readers, and hopefully start contributing in the exciting and rewarding field of WPO. I welcome you in the Episodes Google Group or in the comments of my “WPO Analytics” master thesis blog posts!