Take the 2-minute tour ×
SharePoint Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for SharePoint enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am coming at this from a different angle, probably, but mostly the question I am being asked is if we implement URL Rewrite to handle redirecting older URL's into SharePoint is there a performance hit to our SharePoint 2010 farm? I'm not really sure from a SharePoint view if just checking page load times will suffice, it's what I would check from a regular IIS instance to determine under load if we had a performance problem. Since the question I have to answer is only - will the URL Rewriting cause a problem - I'm not really sure what I could test.

The URL's are basically existing URL's, from the current ASP/IIS site, that will need to redirect to SharePoint url's - getting people from any bookmarked old URL's to the new locations. We only have about 100 of these so it's not an onerous list, but will having URL Rewrite on the Farm mean we will have a performance hit for any requests that do not meet the mapping? I'm a little new to this aspect of SharePoint and URL Rewrite, my belief is that the Mapped URL's are cached and as each request comes in it will be quickly checked then passed on if it doesn't match.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

First, it is important to distinguish between rewrites and redirects. The HTTP modules are usually referred to as rewrite modules (e.g. URLRewriter or IIS7 rewrite module), but will do both rewrites (server responds to old URL with content served from new URL and client is none the wiser) and redirects (server returns a 301 or 302 status code and client initiates a second requested to the new URL). Rewrites are not a supported configuration for SharePoint. You are using redirects - good.

To your question: depending on the rewriter and the complexity of the rules, the effect of the rule processing can be significant. Remember that every incoming URL will be compared against the rules, even if none of them apply. You say you have 100 or so redirecting URLs. If you can find generic rules for most of these it should be better than a long list of individual mappings.

My guess is that you will be able to measure some effect on performance, but not enough to be an issue. Rejecting traffic would be far worse. Users coming in on the old URL will see a delay because of the extra round trip, but over time this should be a diminishing number as they update their URLs.

One last point is that if your old ASP.NET URLs have a different domain you don't need to put the rewriter in front of your SharePoint web application at all. You can set up an IIS site with dummy pages and redirects, leaving your SharePoint virtual server unadulterated.

share|improve this answer
    
This is actually a next step from my earlier question: sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/13493/… The old Site URL is being moved to SharePoint, so unfortunately I have to have mappings since many URL's are really deep and specific, and I want to repoint them to new locations. What measure of performance would I want to check? Is page load time good enough of is there another set of values I'd want to check? –  MichaelF Jun 7 '11 at 15:26
    
Thanks SPDoc, this fit in with what I ended up doing. I ran my tests looking at the page response avg and just simply used that to compare tests with URL Mapping and those without. I didn't find any difference. –  MichaelF Jun 16 '11 at 15:47
    
Sounds good. You did the right thing in running a test. If you were seeing slower page response times you might also want to look at your CPU load to make sure the rewriter/redirector wasn't eating up cycles or other resources. Looks like it's not an issue in this case, though. –  SPDoctor Jun 16 '11 at 16:29
add comment

This might not be the same, but I think it's something worth looking at to give you some additional information. It describes how nothingbutsharepoint.com used IIS7.5 to create 301 redirects from old domains to new domains.

share|improve this answer
    
That looks like some good information. I'll have to read it in depth to see if it gets me any closer to the answer, thanks for the link! I appreciate it. –  MichaelF Jun 7 '11 at 13:51
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.