On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 11:31 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:06 AM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> 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.
> >
> > So - just to be sure, did you pull out the extras (the extensions) that
> > come default with LibO, before checking the footprint?
> >
>
> Just the default install. I didn't change anything. And likely
> neither did the user who was doing the timings.
>
> If that explains the start up differences and the working set
> differences, then that is good to know. As engineers I think we all
> struggle to find ways to add features without slowing the product
> down. We'll face the same set of issues.as we enhance AOO.
>
> -Rob
Howdy,
Historically there have been some problems with extensions and overall
performance - IIRC - some of the grammar checkers, early on, caused
issues. A little voice says maybe there was an issue logged about
dictionaries also, but not sure on that.
//drew
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > //drew
> >
>
