> Any chance that you could track down version when it started to be slow? > Was composite already slow in previous LTS?
Initial tests show that metacity had about the same performance as marco in 12.04 and in 14.04. In those versions, `metacity (or marco) --composite` performs only about 60% as well as `metacity --no-composite`, while `compiz` performs about the same as `metacity --no-composite`. glxgears example: no-wm: 394.117 compiz: 393.603 metacity --no-composite: 403.858 metacity --composite: 239.124 marco --no-composite: 404.455 marco --composite: 242.672 Unfortunately in 16.04 it got a whole lot worse, for example: no-wm: 469.506 compiz: 467.071 metacity --no-composite: 277.188 metacity --composite: 122.936 marco --no-composite: 464.281 marco --composite: 287.314 xcompmgr: 291.990 Now `marco --composite` is still at 60%, while `metacity --composite` is now at only 25% of the optimal performance. But note that `metacity --no-composite` is also a whole lot worse than `marco --no-composite`. Alberts do you want me to try with non-LTS releases as well? These tests were made by running a plain `xinit` (which gives a simple xterm) on top of a usual Ubuntu gnome-flashback installation, while also installing marco there. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157 Title: Metacity's compositing is too slow To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+subscriptions -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
