On 2019/01/04 08:09, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 09:39:56AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > > Very little feedback so far. This diff can only give me valid feedback > > if the coverage of systems and use cases is wide. If I do not get > > more feedback, I have to base my decisions on my own testing, which > > will benefit my systems and use cases, but might harm yours. > > > > So, ladies and gentlemen, start your tests! > > Another reminder. I like to make progress on this. That means I need > tests for various use-cases.
I have a map based website I use that is quite good at stressing things (high spin% cpu) and have been timing from opening chromium (I'm using this for the test because it typically performs less well than firefox). Time is real time from starting the browser set to 'start with previously opened windows' and the page open, until when the page reports that it's finished loading (i.e. fetching data from the server and rendering it). It's not a perfect test - depends on network/server conditions etc - and it's a visualisation of conditions in a game so may change slightly from run to run but there shouldn't be huge changes between the times I've run it - but is a bit more repeatable than a subjective "does the browser feel slow". 4x "real" cores, Xeon E3-1225v3, 16GB ram (not going into swap). I've mixed up the test orders so it's not 3x +++, 2x ++, 3x + etc in order, more like +++, -, '', -, ++ etc. +++ 90 98 68 ++ 85 82 + 87 56 71 '' 76 60 69 88 - 77 74 85 -- 48 86 77 67 So while it's not very consistent, the fastest times I've seen are on runs with fewer pools, and the slowest times on runs with more pools, with '' possibly seeming a bit more consistent from run to run. But there's not enough consistency with any of it to be able to make any clear conclusion (and I get the impression it would be hard to tell without some automated test that can be repeated many times and carrying out a statistical analysis on results).
