You should check it they are running with the same JVM Jeff
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/19/2015 11:41 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I just profiled Studio this morning, and I see nothing in our code that > > causes the slowdown we can perceive with 2.0.0-M9 compared to the > > previous version. I suspect LUNA to be more costly than Kepler or JUNO... > > > > Anyone has tested Studio with Mars ? > > > > I downloaded Java versions of Juno (3.8) Juno (4.2), Luna, Mars (RC3). I > started them with "time ./eclipse" and closed immediately when the > windows appeared. Results: > > Juno 3.8: 10.63s user 0.32s system 193% cpu 5.643 total > Juno 4.2: 25.20s user 0.49s system 289% cpu 8.873 total > Luna 4.4: 26.96s user 0.54s system 296% cpu 9.288 total > Mars 4.5: 33.26s user 0.61s system 308% cpu 10.978 total > > You see there is a big differences between 3.x and 4.x. Also within the > 4.x series the startup time increases slightly from version to version. > What's interesting that startup utilizes multiple cores. > > For Juno there exist two variants: > * 3.8 based on old Eclipse 3 code > * 4.2 based on new Eclipse 4 code > > Studio 2.0.0-M8 is based on the Juno 3.8 which doesn't include all the > e4 stuff (EMF based UI, CSS styling, dependency injection) and Eclipse 3 > compatibility layer. > > I think we have to live with it if we want to use newer Eclipse > versions. There are some "tuning" tips in the web like adding > -Xverify:none but that didn't change anything for me. > > Kind Regards, > Stefan > > -- Jeff MAURY "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling. - Bjarne Stroustrup http://www.jeffmaury.com http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
