On 2/13/13 9:42 AM, janI 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. > > 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.
oh, wait wait wait, that is not true. We include one language per install set only. I don't say that our packaging is optimal and it would be much nicer to have a more flexible mechanism. One reason for the current install set is the one-click user experience that is somewhat important for our millions of Windows users -> download, click, install... No second download and second click to install a lang pack. You can try to build a multi-lingual install set in instset-native/util dmake openoffice_en-US_de_da_sv_pl_... and can compare the size with the simple install sets for one language only. The build process and the localization process is far from good or optimal but it is not directly related to the outcome (install sets). It's more the wasted time during the build process. And the complex and not really easy to maintain localization process at all. >From that point I appreciate your work and investigation to improve this process. If we can improve in the end the memory footprint in an installed office it's even better but I don't see this at the moment. Please show me that I am wrong and make it smaller ;-) Juergen > > just my 2ct. > > rgds > jan I >
