On 06/20/2015 08:33 AM, Jeff MAURY wrote: > You should check it they are running with the same JVM
Yes, I run all tests with Oracle 1.8.0_45 on Linux 4.0.4. > 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 >> >> > >
