Think about people dogfooding. It's barely acceptable to suddenly switch to a much worse version of any app, even I your target is some arbitrary deadline in the future and you're confident to fix issues. You would not do that on a live website right?
On 10/02/2015 09:31 AM, Justin D'Arcangelo wrote: > I feel like this is the 3rd or 4th time I’ve had to give this explanation, > but at least in the case of Music NGA, we merely landed a completely new, > feature-complete app this week. The optimization phase of the code had not > yet begun, hence the reason for the increase in the perf numbers. However, > prior to landing, I *did* run Raptor every day for the past 2 weeks on Flame. > In my Raptor results, Music NGA was coming out ~500ms *faster* than the old > app. However, as I noted in the bug, I do not trust the numbers because of > the OS-wide perf regression that was causing *both* Music apps to take about > 3-4 seconds to launch. > > This week, the focus has been mainly on identifying and quickly addressing > any bugs that came up after the initial testing of the app. I feel that we > have things somewhat under control as far as broken functionality goes. > Yesterday, we started working on optimizations. There are several areas where > we are completely unoptimized at the moment: > > - album art caching/loading > - thumbnail sizes > - script loading > - view caching > > All of these items will address the memory usage, startup time or both. So, > please do not assume that we spent weeks optimizing the app before landing > this week. We merely reached a state of “feature-complete” with a new > codebase. We hope to meet or beat the prior app’s numbers before the v2.5 > deadline. > > Thanks! > > -Justin > > >> On Oct 2, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Fabrice Desré <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> All the nga apps (music, contacts, sms) show significant regressions. Is >> that only a lack of optimizations in these apps, in the bridge they all >> use or design flaws in nga itself? >> In any case, we have to stop porting new apps to nga until these >> questions are answered. >> >> Fabrice >> >> On 10/02/2015 07:51 AM, Eli Perelman wrote: >>> Hello fxos, >>> >>> With deadlines for v2.5 approaching, I thought I would take a couple >>> minutes and summarize the current state of performance for Gaia. At the >>> outset of v2.5 we captured metrics of v2.2 and have used that as the >>> baseline to determine whether applications have regressed their >>> performance since. Any applications whose performance has significantly >>> regressed since v2.2 will need approval to not block as major increases >>> will block v2.5. >>> >>> Enough of the chatter, here's the data: >>> >>> Calendar v2.2 cold launch: 1454ms >>> Calendar current cold launch: 1638ms (~180ms regression) >>> Calendar v2.2 USS: 14.01MB >>> Calendar current USS: 13.99MB (good) >>> >>> Camera v2.2 cold launch: 1492ms >>> Camera current cold launch: 2090ms (~600ms regression) >>> Camera v2.2 USS: 13.83MB >>> Camera current USS: 16.05MB (~2.2MB regression) >>> >>> Clock v2.2 cold launch: 1232ms >>> Clock current cold launch: 1260ms (acceptable) >>> Clock v2.2 USS: 13.98MB >>> Clock current USS: 14.95MB (~1MB regression) >>> >>> Contacts v2.2 cold launch: 773ms >>> Contacts current cold launch: 1246ms (~475ms regression) >>> Contacts v2.2 USS: 18.26MB >>> Contacts current USS: 20.04MB (~1.75MB regression) >>> >>> Dialer v2.2 cold launch: 851ms >>> Dialer current cold launch: 944ms (~90ms regression, still under 1000ms) >>> Dialer v2.2 USS: 17.48MB >>> Dialer current USS: 13.04MB (good!) >>> >>> Email v2.2 cold launch: 2129ms >>> Email current cold launch: 606ms (good!) >>> Email v2.2 USS: 16.17MB >>> Email current USS: 15.78MB (good) >>> >>> FM v2.2 cold launch: 604ms >>> FM current cold launch: 783ms (~175ms regression) >>> FM v2.2 USS: 10.37MB >>> FM current USS: 10.51MB (acceptable) >>> >>> Gallery v2.2 cold launch: 1113ms >>> Gallery current cold launch: 1207ms (~90ms regression) >>> Gallery v2.2 USS: 17.71MB >>> Gallery current USS: 18.98MB (~1.25MB regression) >>> >>> Music v2.2 cold launch: 1066ms >>> Music current cold launch: 1717ms (~650ms regression) >>> Music v2.2 USS: 13.37MB >>> Music current USS: 29.49MB (~16.12MB regression) >>> >>> SMS v2.2 cold launch: 1340ms >>> SMS current cold launch: 1630ms (~290ms regression) >>> SMS v2.2 USS: 12.86MB >>> SMS current USS: 19.94MB (~7MB regression) >>> >>> Settings v2.2 cold launch: 2474ms >>> Settings current cold launch: 2950ms (~475ms regression) >>> Settings v2.2 USS: 17.18MB >>> Settings current USS: 17.54MB (acceptable) >>> >>> Video v2.2 cold launch: 1115ms >>> Video current cold launch: 1309ms (~190ms regression) >>> Video v2.2 USS: 12.13MB >>> Video current USS: 13MB (acceptable) >>> >>> TLDR; there seem to be quite a few serious regressions across many >>> applications, in both cold launch time and USS memory usage. As a >>> comparison, the Test Startup Limit app when first captured started off >>> in the 880ms range, spent a good chunk of June and July around 620ms and >>> is now around 850ms. >>> >>> If anyone has any questions about the data or needs additional >>> information, please let me know. >>> >>> Also, kudos to the Email team for the massive improvement in both launch >>> time and memory. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Eli Perelman >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-fxos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>> >> >> >> -- >> Fabrice Desré >> b2g team >> Mozilla Corporation >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-fxos mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos > -- Fabrice Desré b2g team Mozilla Corporation _______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
