Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Message-ID: <558474C0.807@stefan-seelmann.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 22:00:00 +0200
From: Stefan Seelmann <mail@stefan-seelmann.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Studio] startup performances
References: <5583E3DB.5050204@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5583E3DB.5050204@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 06/19/2015 11:41 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I just profiled Studio this morning, and I see nothing in our code that
> causes the slowdown we can perceive with 2.0.0-M9 compared to the
> previous version. I suspect LUNA to be more costly than Kepler or JUNO...
> 
> Anyone has tested Studio with Mars ?
> 

I downloaded Java versions of Juno (3.8) Juno (4.2), Luna, Mars (RC3). I
started them with "time ./eclipse" and closed immediately when the
windows appeared. Results:

Juno 3.8: 10.63s user 0.32s system 193% cpu 5.643 total
Juno 4.2: 25.20s user 0.49s system 289% cpu 8.873 total
Luna 4.4: 26.96s user 0.54s system 296% cpu 9.288 total
Mars 4.5: 33.26s user 0.61s system 308% cpu 10.978 total

You see there is a big differences between 3.x and 4.x. Also within the
4.x series the startup time increases slightly from version to version.
What's interesting that startup utilizes multiple cores.

For Juno there exist two variants:
* 3.8 based on old Eclipse 3 code
* 4.2 based on new Eclipse 4 code

Studio 2.0.0-M8 is based on the Juno 3.8 which doesn't include all the
e4 stuff (EMF based UI, CSS styling, dependency injection) and Eclipse 3
compatibility layer.

I think we have to live with it if we want to use newer Eclipse
versions. There are some "tuning" tips in the web like adding
-Xverify:none but that didn't change anything for me.

Kind Regards,
Stefan