RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘liferay’

Liferay 6 Performance

08 Mar

Liferay has released performance whitepapers for both Liferay 5 and Liferay 6.  I got a chance today to review Liferay 6 specs and it looks like they have made some significant strides in performance.  Before I point you to the white papers or take two diagrams for comparison, keep in mind that performance on any portal is completely dependent on how you are using it.  Cached content on a portal is fast.  Pulling data from back end systems whose latency is not under your control will probably not be as fast.    You can find the white papers here.

The key findings of the study are:
1. As an infrastructure portal, Liferay Portal can support over 11000 virtual concurrent users on a single server with mean login times
under ½ a second and maximum throughput of 300+ logins per second.
2. In collaboration and social networking scenarios, each physical server supports over 5000 virtual concurrent users at average transaction
times of under 800ms.
3. Liferay Portal’s WCM scales to beyond 150,000 concurrent users on a single Liferay Portal server with average transaction times
under 50ms and 35% CPU utilization.
4. Given sufficient database and efficient load balancing, Liferay Portal can scale linearly as one adds additional servers
to a cluster.

The following charts are throughput based on simple content portlets. (e.g. very light)

Login Throughput on Liferay 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Login Throughput on Liferay 6

 

 

 
 

Liferay 6 Performance

08 Mar

Liferay has released performance whitepapers for both Liferay 5 and Liferay 6.  I got a chance today to review Liferay 6 specs and it looks like they have made some significant strides in performance.  Before I point you to the white papers or take two diagrams for comparison, keep in mind that performance on any portal is completely dependent on how you are using it.  Cached content on a portal is fast.  Pulling data from back end systems whose latency is not under your control will probably not be as fast.    You can find the white papers here.

The key findings of the study are:
1. As an infrastructure portal, Liferay Portal can support over 11000 virtual concurrent users on a single server with mean login times
under ½ a second and maximum throughput of 300+ logins per second.
2. In collaboration and social networking scenarios, each physical server supports over 5000 virtual concurrent users at average transaction
times of under 800ms.
3. Liferay Portal’s WCM scales to beyond 150,000 concurrent users on a single Liferay Portal server with average transaction times
under 50ms and 35% CPU utilization.
4. Given sufficient database and efficient load balancing, Liferay Portal can scale linearly as one adds additional servers
to a cluster.

The following charts are throughput based on simple content portlets. (e.g. very light)

Login Throughput on Liferay 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Login Throughput on Liferay 6

 

 

 
 

Highlights and Shortfalls of Liferay’s Web Content Management

06 Mar

Liferay Portal 6 includes a Web Content Management system that integrates really nicely with the portal.  After reviewing Liferay Portal, I’ve come up with my list of highlights and shortfalls of the Liefray’s Web Content Management feature.  My comments are based on what is available in the standard UI.  Of course you could extend Liferay yourself to add features you may find missing.

Highlights

  • Works right out of the box – As soon as Portal finished installing you can begin to create content right away.  There is one standard template available that is generic enough to be used to create rich content immediately
  • Integration with Portal – this is where Liferay really shines.  You can easily create content on any page of the portlet with just a couple of clicks.
  • Modern User interface – the UI for managing Web Content is used the latest widgets within Liferay.  Creating content is a pleasurable experience within Liferay.
  • Localization – if you need to support multiple languages with your content, Liferay makes this pretty easy, compared with other Portals.
  • Structures and templates – Structures allow you to define input fields specific to the type of content you need to create.  This is important when you want to capture certain fields from the user.  Templates allow you to display content in a variety of forms using one copy of the data.
  • Tagging – authors can tag content rather than wait for users to do the tagging.  This

Shortfalls

  • Lack of Folders – this is really strange to me: you can create folders for images and documents, but not web content!  While you can organize content into communities and sub communities, but these are not the same as folders.  When you have more than 20-30 pieces of content, letting users organize them into folders seems like a good feature.  Some have suggested using categories instead of folders.  Either way, you need some way to organize content so authors don’t have to wade through long lists to locate what they want.
  • Sharing of content between communities – Liferay does not allow you to share content across communities, unless you put the content into the Global community.  So if you have an article created for your marketing community, you can’t easily display that in the HR community.
  • Preview in context – while you can preview content, you don’t see your content previewed in the context of portal.  It would be nice to preview a pieced of content in a specific page.
  • Publishing outside of Portal – Liferay intended its Web Content to be used within Portal.  If you want to publish content outside of your portal, there is not an easy way to create a non-portal site from the content.

Overall, Liferay’s Web Content Management feature is a quality part of Liferay Portal and is adequate for managing Portal content.  I think if Liferay addresses some of the shortfalls I mentioned, it could begin to be comparable to other enterprise-level Web Content Management systems.