Umbraco 8.18.10 version contains a addon to the web.config app settings which was not mentioned in the release notes page

[stefanbesteman-nxtlvl]

Which Umbraco version are you using? (Please write the exact version, example: 10.1.0)

upgraded to 8.18.10

Bug summary

Umbraco 8.18.10 has a new optional app setting in web.config which is not mentioned in the release notes page. We have a large site which was version 8.18.8 and we upgraded that to 8.18.12 after which the performance was gone. Almost every time an editor wanted to publish content they got the message 'Lock timeout exceeded' and there content was not saved. There was a very heavy query continuously running in de background I found out.

Then I went deeper in each release notes page, because there was not a breaking change mentioned.

The I found out about a new app setting After we applied to the web.config the performance was restored.

I needed to go 3 urls deeper from the release notes page, to find out there was a new app setting release notes page 8.18.10 https://our.umbraco.com/download/releases/81810 then [Make PublishedSnapshotService more performant for large websites] https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS/issues/13525

then was a linked called fixed in #14827 where the details for V8 where https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS/pull/14827

UMBRACO YOU CAN DO THIS BETTER, it costed me a lot of time to find out what the problem was.

Can you please add this app setting option to the release notes page of 8.18.10

Thank in advance Stefan Besteman

Specifics

https://our.umbraco.com/download/releases/81810 then https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS/issues/13525 then https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS/pull/14827

Steps to reproduce

Upgrade to 8.18.10

Expected result / actual result

A fine working site/ actual result: A very slow non functional backoffice

[github-actions[bot]]

Hi there @stefanbesteman-nxtlvl!

Firstly, a big thank you for raising this issue. Every piece of feedback we receive helps us to make Umbraco better.

We really appreciate your patience while we wait for our team to have a look at this but we wanted to let you know that we see this and share with you the plan for what comes next.

• We'll assess whether this issue relates to something that has already been fixed in a later version of the release that it has been raised for.
• If it's a bug, is it related to a release that we are actively supporting or is it related to a release that's in the end-of-life or security-only phase?
• We'll replicate the issue to ensure that the problem is as described.
• We'll decide whether the behavior is an issue or if the behavior is intended.

We wish we could work with everyone directly and assess your issue immediately but we're in the fortunate position of having lots of contributions to work with and only a few humans who are able to do it. We are making progress though and in the meantime, we will keep you in the loop and let you know when we have any questions.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot :robot: :slightly_smiling_face:

[nul800sebastiaan]

While I understand your frustration, there's not need to "yell" in all caps.

I've had a look at the related issues/PRs and the intention was: if you just upgrade and don't add the web.config key, then you get the exact same not-optimal performance that you had before the upgrade. Addding that key does have a trade-off that everything gets loaded into memory all at once, that might not be a problem for your site, but it could be for some. This is why the default behavior has stayed unchanged.

The reason we didn't advise people to add this new config option is that there should be no need, the query didn't change by default. Adding it will change the default behavior with possible negative side effects. So it's surprising you had negative side effects with what is in essence the same code as before.

Maybe we've missed something in the code update though, I can't spot anything, can you?

[stefanbesteman-nxtlvl]

Sorry for my frustation, but it took really a lot of development time to find the problem

I dont’t know what was changed exactly after 8.18.8 (this version was running smoothly at our site)

But I saw this enormous query running in the background continuosly in 8.18.12, that was why users got the lock timeout. Maybe this is added also in 8.18.9 or 8.18.10, 11 or 12, without knowing off the change

Maybe you can look into that also

Thanks in advance

@. @. @. @. @. @. @. @. @.*** bigint)SELECT [umbracoNode].[id] AS [Id], [umbracoNode].[uniqueId] AS [Key], [umbracoNode].[level] AS [Level], [umbracoNode].[path] AS [Path], [umbracoNode].[sortOrder] AS [SortOrder], [umbracoNode].[parentId] AS [ParentId], [umbracoNode].[createDate] AS [CreateDate], [umbracoNode].[nodeUser] AS [CreatorId] , [umbracoContent].[contentTypeId] AS [ContentTypeId] , [umbracoDocument].[published] AS [Published], [umbracoDocument].[edited] AS [Edited] , [umbracoContentVersion].[id] AS [VersionId], [umbracoContentVersion].[text] AS [EditName], [umbracoContentVersion].[versionDate] AS [EditVersionDate], [umbracoContentVersion].[userId] AS [EditWriterId] , [umbracoDocumentVersion].[templateId] AS [EditTemplateId] , [pcver].[id] AS [PublishedVersionId], [pcver].[text] AS [PubName], [pcver].[versionDate] AS [PubVersionDate], [pcver].[userId] AS [PubWriterId] , [pdver].[templateId] AS [PubTemplateId] , [nuEdit].[data] AS [EditData] , [nuPub].[data] AS [PubData] , [nuEdit].[dataRaw] AS [EditDataRaw] , [nuPub].[dataRaw] AS [PubDataRaw] FROM [umbracoNode] INNER JOIN [umbracoNode] [x] ON (([umbracoNode].[id] = [x].[id]) OR ([umbracoNode].[path] LIKE concat([x].[path],',%'))) INNER JOIN [umbracoContent] ON ([umbracoNode].[id] = [umbracoContent].[nodeId]) INNER JOIN [umbracoDocument] ON ([umbracoNode].[id] = [umbracoDocument].[nodeId]) INNER JOIN [umbracoContentVersion] ON (([umbracoNode].[id] = [umbracoContentVersion].[nodeId]) AND [umbracoContentVersion].[current] = @0) INNER JOIN [umbracoDocumentVersion] ON ([umbracoContentVersion].[id] = [umbracoDocumentVersion].[id]) LEFT JOIN [umbracoContentVersion] [pcver] INNER JOIN [umbracoDocumentVersion] [pdver] ON (([pcver].[id] = [pdver].[id]) AND ([pdver].[published] = @1)) ON ([umbracoNode].[id] = [pcver].[nodeId]) LEFT JOIN [cmsContentNu] [nuEdit] ON (([umbracoNode].[id] = [nuEdit].[nodeId]) AND [nuEdit].[published] = @2) LEFT JOIN [cmsContentNu] [nuPub] ON (([umbracoNode].[id] = [nuPub].[nodeId]) AND ([nuPub].[published] = @3)) WHERE ((([umbracoNode].[nodeObjectType] = @4) AND ([umbracoNode].[trashed] = @5))) AND (([x].[id] = @6)) ORDER BY [umbracoNode].[level], [umbracoNode].[parentId], [umbracoNode].[sortOrder] OFFSET @7 ROWS FETCH NEXT @8 ROWS ONLY

Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Stefan Besteman SOFTWARE ENGINEER +31638749925 Graaf Reinaldweg 22 Tuil | Keesomstraat 40A Ede | +31418591166 | www.nxtlvl.nl | kvk: 81473141 Van: Sebastiaan Janssen @.> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2024 11:41 Aan: umbraco/Umbraco-CMS @.> CC: Stefan Besteman | Nxtlvl @.>; Mention @.> Onderwerp: Re: [umbraco/Umbraco-CMS] Umbraco 8.18.10 version contains a addon to the web.config app settings which was not mentioned in the release notes page (Issue #15725)

Waarschuwing: LET OP: Deze e-mail is afkomstig van buiten de organisatie. Klik niet op links of open geen bijlagen, tenzij u de afzender herkent en zeker weet dat de inhoud veilig is.

While I understand your frustration, there's not need to "yell" in all caps.

I've had a look at the related issues/PRs and the intention was: if you just upgrade and don't add the web.config key, then you get the exact same not-optimal performance that you had before the upgrade. Addding that key does have a trade-off that everything gets loaded into memory all at once, that might not be a problem for your site, but it could be for some. This is why the default behavior has stayed unchanged.

The reason we didn't advise people to add this new config option is that there should be no need, the query didn't change by default. Adding it will change the default behavior with possible negative side effects. So it's surprising you had negative side effects with what is in essence the same code as before.

Maybe we've missed something in the code update though, I can't spot anything, can you?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS/issues/15725#issuecomment-1948140616, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBCXRUAW7JMEXFYA5CPV3XLYT4ZT7AVCNFSM6AAAAABDLVMXQSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNBYGE2DANRRGY. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.**@.>>