On 1/12/2012 10:06 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Brian Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[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...
QA is doing some manual testing comparing us to other browsers, etc. See
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/Snappy/Testing:BFCache_Sprint#Reference_Test_Case
. We will make this more complex/concrete in future iterations by adding
xperf, wireshark into the mix.
My concern isn't worst case perf specifically. I'm concerned that a
cache could actually be lagging us. We should change our implementation
to make that impossible(ie
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715714). I don't care that
other browsers have an even crappier cache implementation than we do :)
Taras
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-network mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
