On 10.05.2012 17:06, drew wrote:
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.
I don´t know about bare bones. Sure, we removed a small number of
libraries, but AOO 3.4 is still a regular release when it comes to
functionality.
So - just to be sure, did you pull out the extras (the extensions) that
come default with LibO, before checking the footprint?
Extensions are loaded on demand. Even if Libre Office includes more
extensions and may even have turned some extensions into "regular" code,
that does not change the size of soffice.bin.
-Andre
