-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[EPIC] Performance: SQLite backed cache #8527
Comments
Some of the backend changes have already been implemented in 2.7.2
Some are incoming in 2.7 Q2
Some that we would like for 2.7 Q2 but are not blocking (in order of importance)
In addition we need to consider more advanced ways to search
|
The backend will not support sorting/filtering on 'calculated' fields e.g. current model getters. For the first iteration we should concentrate on badly performing lists that don't need them, this does include all workload types and secrets. Possible Flow
Question
|
I wanted to say this 2 years ago, but I decided to wait and give Rancher time to improve. I can't help but notice this issue is a year old. Still, in 2024 Rancher's performance makes the product completely unusable, while alternative tools are fast and snappy. I quit using Rancher because it's soooo slow. It's hogging 4 GB memory and 4 CPUs on a brand new cluster. It's been doing this ever since rancher 2.6 and there seems to be no improvements. I don't understand how alternative tools can be so fast, while the rancher dashboard just freezes all the time because the rancher server CPU and Memory get maxed out. Makes no sense to me. 1 user, 1 cluster, 4 gb ram, 4 cpus and it's still not enough, and it's been this way for years. It's the one issue that's forced me to look for alternatives. The rancher product feature set is great, but I really wish I could say the same about its performance. |
@clayrisser This is a year old, and I can empathise with the frustration you've experienced. We are very actively working on a solution though (see linked issues and their prs for UI progress). Unfortunately API side hit a road block which has delayed things a bit. I'm happy to say though that we are targeting a tech preview of the feature in 2.9.0. In addition 2.9.0 contains many UI performance improvements that assist both memory and CPU usage. It's worth giving that a try when released. |
I will try again with 2.9.0, but if it requires running a large server, (more than 4 CPU) it's just not worth it. I'm going to assume rancher works well for very large deployments that have resources to throw at it, but small deployments can't justify too many resources for it. |
Please add pagination to the "new" UI. It's unusable when importing hundreds of clusters. We have to use the old UI which still has pagination. /g/clusters |
@chad-barensfeld-exa Server-side pagination is a large project that we are currently targeting in and enabled by default in 2.11. In parallel we have been making a number of other performance improvements which have received a lot of positive feedback from the community and SUSE customers, including those using Ranchers with a large number of clusters. Unfortunately the old UI is not supported and will soon be unavailable. It also did not use server-side pagination (instead normally only showed a very restricted set of resources). To help us with your specific performance issue would you be able to open a new github issue and provide as much detail as possible on what and where the performance is problematic, such as
Add concrete examples, eg.
If there's lots of places where performance isn't great, focus on one process they found most likely to see issues, or where the issues are worst. Do all network requests take a long time to complete, or is there one or two in particular that take time? |
2.9
2.11 (WIP)
disable / updates
option in lists that use this featureselector
s locally scales badly #10417 (can be split up as per remove usages of findAlls)2.12 (wip)
catalog
store can use server-side pagination to improve performance #12557Backend Issues (not complete list)
Related
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: