Loading the above url took 1 minute and 57 seconds. With another new profile, loading http://junruh/knox/color/color.html took 7 seconds.
marking nsbeta3- per pdt review.
*** Bug 55195 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Umm..this should have been release noted :-( Can we still add this to the beta3 release notes?
Release noted - "Win98- Loading of secure (https) sites with lots of picture files can be very slow."
Adding Need Info and cc:ing trudelle. Is anyone working on this, or did RelNoting for PR3 cover this?
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-] → [nsbeta3-][Need Info]
I don't know anything about this, other than that it is still glacial in the latest branch build on Win98. Javi? David? cc lord
The stress-test page is still slow, but we won't have a low risk change any time soon. Changing from [need info] to [rtm-]
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-][Need Info] → [nsbeta3-][rtm-]
The given release note seems to me to be almost certainly not what the problem actually is. Why pictures only, for example? I'm nominating this for relnote-user, but I think we need to work out exactly what's going on here. Gerv
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-][rtm-] → [nsbeta3-][rtm-] relnote-user
This bug makes several commercial websites I use load so slowly that the browser appears to hang for a minute or more at a time. I've already seen the problem on bankamerica.com and palm.net. It seems that this issue could really limit the number of people who will use the browser on a daily basis if it takes them minutes to view SSL websites they use daily. Is there at least a workaround for this problem?
The workaround is to use NT, Win2000, Linux or Mac.
Summary: Win98-SSL urls with lots of gifs load very slow. → Win98,95-SSL urls with lots of gifs load very slow.
*** Bug 59190 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I don't see this as being a problem with pages which have lots of images - I am involved in development of a secure website here and I see this performance problem with all pages. In fact, if I turn off images and load the same pages via https and http URLS there is still a difference of around 3x in the time taken. Of course if the page _does_ have lots of images then maybe I'm seeing this sort of performance custard for each image. A fairly graphical page with maybe 30 images for buttons, spacers, rollovers and stuff that your typical web layout designer comes up with is therefore going to take an extra 30 seconds to load. Not a good look. In my tests with a P400 accessthing the same 30k page of very simple HTML across our local 100MB LAN: http: url takes 0.94 seconds the first time, decreasing to 0.44 seconds on repeated refresh. https: url takes around 5 seconds the first time, decreasing to around 1.5 seconds on repeated refresh.
This bug is not confined to Win98 or the mozilla code. I can reproduce this bug on win98, NT, and win2000 using Netscape 4.72, Netscape 6 PR3, or recient Mozilla code. Our secure pages contain 5 gif's in the headers and footers that total 16KB. These are the same on every page so they should be catched. We are using Netscape Enterprise Server 3.63 on Sparcs running SunOS 5.8. Most of the secure pages are JSPs being served from a Weblogic 4.52 Server. Given that this problem has caused use to begin using IE for our development work, and recommend it to our customers as well, I think it would be a good idea to upgrade it to a higher priority.
Is the SSL connection being kept open to load all the images or is a new connection being created for each one? If new connections are being created, that might explain why it is so slow. I ask because, when I try to access an SSL site through our corporate firewall, I see some garbage at the top of the page that looks like HTTP headers. Included in the garbage is "Connection: close".
*** Bug 67269 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please fix this before .9. I would hate to see the next netscape & 9/10ths of a Mozilla have this problem. It hinders ecommerence on the Internet. Right now for purchases I make, I must use IE, Netscape 4, or wait forever on Mozilla (and I have a P800 and a T1). I personally think the severity & priority should be bumped up (and helpwanted keyword if no one is fixing right now) + a target milestone set. Perhaps mozilla0.9 keyword?
Have a look at http://banking.migrosbank.ch/demo with mozilla0.8 and compare it to NS 4.76 or IE. No e-commerce is possible with mozilla.
Ok we're past nsbeta's so removing those keywords. adding mozilla0.9.1 keyword.
Severity: normal → major
Keywords: nsbeta1, nsbeta3 → mozilla0.9.1
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.1
This is a dogfood bug. THis bug makes any major e-commerece site (the secure part) unusable in mozilla. buy.com for example: https://www.us.buy.com/corp/support/login.asp my p3 800 with a dsl connection chokes
Agreed, priority on this one should be bumped up. I use Mozilla/Win98 as my main browser and when I want to do online banking, or shop online, or whatever, I have to grab a cup of coffee between page loads. I couldn't see the general public putting up with this kind of atrocious slowness in a browser. This one should really be fixed before the next Netscape branch...
Also, the test-case URL no longer works.
The testcase works if you're inside the Netscape firewall. Here is another site that is slow to load - https://enigma.barclaycard.co.uk/
cc self. sorry for the SPAM.
I am not if the bug is limitted to windows platforms, for I also encountered this bug in 0.8 on FreeBSD.
since most of us are outside the firewall... The enigma url loaded in ~35s on w2k. Assuming that it is comprable to the firewalled testcase, and assuming that the original report is still accurate, this bug is specifically for w9x performance being ~300% worse than the other platforms. i tested on a 4/13-04 build that included a hacked XPFE interface which should hurt performance slightly (the content pane was reflowing because it wasn't sure about how wide it could be). this is before the psm2 landing i think. junruh: how many of my assumptions are wrong? ddrinan: was there some specific flaw in NSPR or 9X winsock that caused this? and does psm2 change any of this?
Well I can say that since PSM2 has been added to the nightly builds performance has gone way up. :-) Going to amazon.com or buy.com is much faster. These sites were slow as hell before. If I was the reporter of this bug I would mark this WFM or Fixed. Nice fix.
Marking worksforme. Performance of SSL on Win95,98 has increased dramatically now that PSM 2.0 is in the builds. I should have detailed performance numbers in the next few weeks comparing SSL download times on 4.77, IE 5.5, Mozilla with PSM 1.5 and Mozilla with PSM 2.0. The PSM 2.0 developers mentioned yesterday that they have not yet spent time on speeding up SSL performance, so download times should decrease further in the future.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Marking Verf. Great job! :-)
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Mass changing Security:Crypto to PSM
Component: Security: Crypto → Client Library
Product: Browser → PSM
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9.1 → ---
Version: other → 2.1
Mass changing Security:Crypto to PSM
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.