On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Brian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 1/10/12 8:26 PM, Jason Duell wrote: > > > The take-away would seem to be that we're not doing anything really > > > horrible (yay), and are competitive with IE/Opera, but we could > > > improve somewhat (Chrome tends to be faster). Nothing earth- > > > shattering or market-defining, IMO. > > > > The main take-away for me was that for uncached loads of big complex > > pages we do pretty comparably to Chrome, but for cached ones we're > > way slower.... > > This is how I interpreted it too. > > I think also that Taras's concern is more about startup time issues with > the cache, with more of an emphasis on worse-case performance as opposed to > the best case (good hardware) configurations like this test seems to be > emphasizing. > Do you guys think that it would be useful to get somebody to benchmark how much overhead our cache introduces? Doing this much worse with the cache enabled is bad IMO. A simple first step would be for somebody to submit Talos runs on a try server job with the disk (and maybe mem) cache disabled and compare some numbers... -- Ehsan <http://ehsanakhgari.org/> _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
