On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 08:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Ross Gardler
> > <rgard...@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.
>
Alright - likely I don't need to ask this - The packages ship from a
really different mindset, one Aoo is bare bones (particularly this
specific release) and LibO comes with condiments.
So - just to be sure, did you pull out the extras (the extensions) that
come default with LibO, before checking the footprint?
Thanks,
//drew
