Copied to clipboard

Flag this post as spam?

This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at


  • Joao Pinto 13 posts 34 karma points
    Apr 11, 2023 @ 15:59
    Joao Pinto
    0

    U10 - Blob storage for media very slow

    Recently I migrated a website from v8 to V10 and I'm facing performance issues in response time when accessing /media/ items (hosted on blob storage)

    With Umbraco V8 the avg response time for media items was under 100ms With Umbraco V10 the avg response time is between 1 to 2 seconds, sometimes it takes up to 30 seconds to load an image.

    The website is hosted in Azure and using Blob storage (standard 2) for media items.

    On UmbracoV8 it used Blob storage for media storage, BUT the cached items (crops) were hosted in the local storage of the App Service instead.

    With Umbraco V10 both media and cache are stored in blob storage.

    The website has many media items, here the numbers: 47.3k items in media folder 87.6k items in cache folder

    Does anyone have experience with websites that have such a big media storage on azure? Any performance issues?

  • Stuart Paterson 58 posts 229 karma points
    May 30, 2023 @ 15:43
    Stuart Paterson
    0

    Joao,

    Just wondering if you had found the reason for this outside of this community post as I think I might be seeing a similar scenario.

    Thanks, Stuart

  • Joao Pinto 13 posts 34 karma points
    May 30, 2023 @ 16:13
    Joao Pinto
    0

    No reason and no solution found so far. We now configured the website to use local storage for crops cache and use blob storage only for media storage. But media requests are still very slow some times. The next thing we'll try is to delete unused medias to clean up the blob storage, maybe with less items it will get faster

  • fatmazayed 41 posts 122 karma points
    Jun 08, 2023 @ 09:17
    fatmazayed
    0

    i have the same issue too

  • Sander van de Pas 74 posts 147 karma points
    Sep 22, 2023 @ 11:14
    Sander van de Pas
    0

    Hi,

    Is there a solution for this issue already?

    We ran into the same problem.

    Grtz Sander

  • Garðar Þorsteinsson 118 posts 564 karma points
    Mar 19, 2024 @ 14:28
    Garðar Þorsteinsson
    0

    Hi,

    After moving from Umbraco 8 to 10+ on multiple projects we are experience similar issues.

    Does not matter if the cache is on local or blob storage.

    We are seeing at random images taking from 1sec to 40sec to load.

    If we disable the blob storage package and use everything by default locally the issue goes away.

    This is having a major performance issues on many projects.

  • Erik Eelman 81 posts 321 karma points
    Jun 27, 2024 @ 13:43
    Erik Eelman
    0

    Hi,

    We are experiencing the same issues. Does someone has a fix or workaround for this after all this time?

  • Alan Draper 57 posts 140 karma points
    1 day ago
    Alan Draper
    0

    Did you hear anything back? I'm getting the same problem.

  • jerin-ose 8 posts 28 karma points
    1 day ago
    jerin-ose
    0

    I have used a CDN to load the image, but I haven't yet checked how much time it takes. I will look into it and get back to you.

  • Erik Eelman 81 posts 321 karma points
    1 day ago
    Erik Eelman
    0

    No, i didn't get any response. We've found out that the issue is most likely caused by the Umbraco.StorageProviders.AzureBlob package since it is using IFileProvider and this doesn't allow for async calls. And this might cause waiting requests if you get to many at once.

    Ronald made a draft PR some time ago for this: https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco.StorageProviders/pull/26

    And some more info i found about this: https://procodeguide.com/asp-net-core/scale-aspnet-core-application-thread/

    Its not pretty, but for now what seems to help our website is to increase the minimal allowed threads in de program.cs:

    ServicePointManager.DefaultConnectionLimit = 100; 
    ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(100, 100);
    
Please Sign in or register to post replies

Write your reply to:

Draft