On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <and...@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
