One thing that definately got slower between kepler and luna is resolving on cold start with many reexports.
Tom Von meinem iPhone gesendet > Am 26.03.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Thomas Watson <[email protected]>: > > Hi Martin, > > There are no plans as of now to work on a performance issue at the framework > level. I'm not saying I would not work on a performance issue, just that I > am unaware of a performance issue in the framework that contributes to the > slowdown you have observed. I'm not sure how to interpret the PDF you sent. > I'm unsure what the various columns mean. My guess is that each release we > have more bundles with more classes to load which contribute to more time to > start. > > This is especially true if you are comparing Luna vs Mars and see a slower > time to start. The Luna and Mars framework implementations are virtually > identical so my initial guess is we are loading more code to start Eclipse. > > Tom > > > > > > From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: 03/26/2015 08:40 AM > Subject: [equinox-dev] Eclipse Startup Performance > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > Hello Equinox and Platform/UI committers, > > We recently measured startup performance of our IDE based on Eclipse. We > measured 4 milestones: > - 20140325 (based on Kepler SR2), > - 20141014 (based on Luna SR1), > - 20150224 (based on Luna SR2) > - 20150224+mars (based on Mars M5a). > > Attached are the findings in summary: for each milestone, the left-hand > column has CPU time in milliseconds, relative % within the milestone, and the > delta compared to the previous milestone. > The sad news are that startup performance got worse on every iteration – from > 8 seconds with Kepler SR2, to almost 10 seconds with Mars M5a. > > We used JProfiler to measure warmstart performance after a couple of > “restarts” into a Workspace that includes a C/C++ project and had an editor > open. > Then, in JProfiler we filtered-out any JDK and JFace packages and made their > numbers aggregate up to the callers; > Finally, we accumulated numbers by package prefix to see who’s the biggest > contributors to startup time. > > We didn’t see any truly significant performance hit, but still the gentle > decrease in performance does feel like a “death of a 1000 cuts” issue. > Given that M7 is traditionally a “Performance Milestone”, I was wondering > what the committers thought: > Are there any known performance issues that were already planned to be > addressed ? > > Looking at > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/S-4.5M6-201503200800/performance/performance.php > > I see a 5.8% performance decrease on the “Core UI Startup” fingerprint. > Can that be seen as representative for the average user’s IDE startup > experience ? How would it compare to a Kepler, or Eclipse 3.8.2 baseline ? > > I would be interested in hearing any thoughts. > > Thanks! > Martin > -- > Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River > direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6[attachment "201502.pdf" > deleted by Thomas Watson/Austin/IBM] > _______________________________________________ > equinox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev > _______________________________________________ > equinox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
