openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Performance test comparisons
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:37:02 GMT
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

I hope the strings are all packaged into read-only memory segments.
If we do that then the OS should be able to demand-page them into the
process when needed rather than hold them in memory.

-Rob


> 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
View raw message