On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:23 +0200, Andre Fischer wrote:
> 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.
I think it does - I just did that, though I'm under Linux currently, so
perhaps that's a difference - anyway - added extensions to both Aoo and
Libo and the footprint for soffice.bin changed in each, for subsequent
loads.
//drew
>
> -Andre
>
>
