openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From janI <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Performance test comparisons
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:42:42 GMT
On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <andrew@pitonyak.org>wrote:

>
> If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving, and
> closing AndrewMacro.odt
>
> LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc
> documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc document...
> Not sure what they used, however.
>
>
> On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on
>> Windows against OOo 3.3.0.  And since LibreOffice claims that their
>> 4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see
>> if we could learn anything.
>>
>> I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text
>> document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification.  I looked at memory
>> consumed and the number of seconds to load.  I loaded the document
>> once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times
>> and took the average.  All tests done on identical hardware.
>>
>> Memory use (KB for soffice.bin):
>>
>> OOo 3.3.0:    133,472
>> AOO 3.4.1:   129,928
>> LO 4.0:         165,796
>>
>> Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads)
>>
>> OOo 3.3.0:    16.0
>> AOO 3.4.1:    20.9
>> LO 4.0:          23.7
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance
>> tests of OpenOffice?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
> --
> Andrew Pitonyak
> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
> Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
>
Hi.

If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our
international version,

An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment.

Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb

However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116
languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb.

I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as
running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something
that a simple if could correct (dont  use all languages, but simply
--with-lang)

Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces  over the code,
and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main
memory.

My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for
performance, especially in regard to footprint.

just my 2ct.

rgds
jan I

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message