If I compare with your current instance 2.5.1, I see a much faster visualization and without waiting for the actions of the previously mentioned files.

2.5.1_Official__Load_time.jpg (95,049 bytes)   

2.5.1_Official__Load_time.jpg (95,049 bytes)   

PHP 5.6.25

I recommend to use 7.x as it's faster than 5.6.x

1.3.0, 1.3.6, 2.2.0 and 2.2

What's the reason that you don't use 2.7?
It's even faster than the 2.5.1 you tried which seems to be ok for you.
There will be 2.8. the next few days which will also contain some minor performance enhancements.

I upgraded the version of PHP to 7.0.10 and there is no significant improvement.

For the version of Mantis, I am forced for the moment to remain in version 1.3.x because I developed plugins that I can not yet adapt to the 2.x.x.

I am not able to reproduce, see screen shot,
This seems to be a problem of WAMP and/or your browser (maybe you have installed plugins, I tried a clean install of Chrome Version 62.0.3202.75)

myView1.3.png (21,465 bytes)   

myView1.3.png (21,465 bytes)   

yanual,

This is not a bug or feature request for MantisBT (you are asking for help on how to deal with performance problems caused by your operating environment). I am therefore resolving this issue as "no change required".

Please use the forums to get support on customizing and using MantisBT (refer to http://www.mantisbt.org/support.php for links and further details).

Thanks for your feedback.
However, I can not fully explain the differences in behavior between the different versions.
Each instance runs on the same platform, so strictly under the same conditions and the results are found on the browsers IE, FireFox and Chrome (Version 62.0.3202.75 (Official Build) (64 bits)).
I did other tests (me too with clean versions), and force is to note (despite my previous bugnote) that there is a gain of about 500ms with version 7 of PHP for vesions 1.3. x and 2.2.x.
That said, they do not live up to the performance of 1.x.

As you told me, I did tests with your new version 2.8.0 and there big surprise, it is much more powerful. I notice a parrallessition of html parsings and the famous scripts javascript_translations.php, java_config.php, status_config.php and config_common.
I had already seen this phenomenon with your platform (see the note 0023558:0058077) and I also see it on mine with the 2.8.0 (it does not seem completely involved).
So I think you've made improvements since 2.2.0 to parralelize treatments.

To go back to version 1.3.12 (as mentioned above, I can not switch to 2.x at the moment) I do not see these advances.
Could you inform me of your intentions for the future of this branch?
And if possible, to identify the contributions which could have influenced the performances (parralèlisation) between the 2.2.0 and 2.5.1 / 2.8.0 and to postpone them on a new version 1.3.x, but there I ask maybe too much.

Still, thank you very much for taking time to look my problem.

That said, they do not live up to the performance of 1.x.

You will hardly get the performance of 1.1 or 1.2 in 1.3 and 2.x as the new versions come with

• better security (thus adding so called CSP headers to each HTTP request)
• more functionality (e.g. timeline, thus producing some more HTML code)
• new UI in 2.x (thus delivering fonts, more CSS and JavaScript)
• ...

So I think you've made improvements since 2.2.0 to parralelize treatments.

These are the performance enhancements since 2.2
0023451 0023446 0023310 0023411 0023324 0023237 0023204 0021871

Could you inform me of your intentions for the future of this branch?

I don't expect any enhancements in 1.3 developed by the MantisBT core developers, just fixing security issues.
Of course, there would still be enhancements if there is a community member sending a pull request for it on https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt

Ok, thanks again, I'm going to explore this list of tickets and see if I can make an improvement on my trunk.

I made the modifications of the ticket 23324 and I get a gain of about 400ms.

Can you look my PR https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/1229 ?