incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Performance!
Date Thu, 10 May 2012 12:51:54 GMT
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Imacat,
>>
>> This was originally posted to the private list so as not to offend
>> some of our more sensitive list subscribers. However, some useful
>> discussion started looking at why the graphs looked like they did. I,
>> as a mentor, requested that it be moved here so that everyone, could
>> benefit from the discussion. Imacat did not post all comments, only
>> the link that was the catalyst, since they were made in private, it's
>> up to others to bring their constructive thoughts here.
>>
>> I think I see a potential for collaboration between the various ODF
>> related projects here.
>>
>> Can a few sample documents be created which produce graphs showing
>> better performance in other ODF products? Michael, you say they can do
>> that for LO, I invite you to do so. Such documents would help AOO
>> developers explore weakness in AOO code.
>>
>> At the same time AOO could provide documents that demonstrate better
>> AOO performance. These will help other projects explore weaknesses in
>> their own  code.
>>
>> RANDOM THOUGHT: are there any ODF test documents that might serve this purpose?
>>
>
> Another idea:  the blog post also indicates that AOO 3.4 uses less RAM
> than LO:  35Mb versus 43MB.   This might be related to the start up
> performance difference.  But since neither product has made radical
> changes to internal memory structures, any difference in memory
> consumption is probably related to what libraries are loaded at
> startup.  That should be easier to track down.
>
> Also, a comparison of AOO 3.4 versus OOo 3.3.0 would indicate whether
> we're dealing with a coding improvement in AOO 3.4 or a regression in
> LO.  Whatever the result,  that gives useful information that can be
> used to improve performance.
>

A quick test suggests a little of both:

Looking soffice.bin ("working set" memory footprint in Windows XP) for
Writer start up, no document loaded:

OOo 3.3.0 = 95,792 Kb
AOO 3.4.0 = 88,508 Kb
LO  3.5.1 = 108,120 Kb

So compared to OOo 3.3.0, AOO 3.4 is reduced 8% and LO increased 13%.
 Of course, RAM is (relatively) cheap, so the raw numbers are not that
important.  But any associated initialization code associated with
whatever is causing this difference, that could easily impact start
performance.

> -Rob
>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 10 May 2012 10:25, imacat <imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>> FYI ^_*'
>>> Please do not attack any party, or create any FUD.
>>>
>>> ------- Original mail -------
>>> Subject: Performance!
>>> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 23:51:47 +0200
>>> From: Armin Le Grand <armin_le_grand@me.com>
>>>
>>> Nice read: http://tinyurl.com/c24awgq
>>>
>>> --
>>> ALG (iPad)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> imacat ^_*' <imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
>>> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>>>
>>> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
>>> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
>>> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
>>> Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
>>> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Mime
View raw message