interesting benchmark of OOo performance (FC5 t2)

[Marius Andreiana]

Hi,

Quoting Dan Kegel from http://www.winehq.org/?issue=305

To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5
under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time on a Fedora
Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions: native vs. with wine from
cvs, and with 416MB RAM vs. 96 MB RAM (by booting with mem=96M; this
was to simulate running on one of those cheapo 128MB boxes that uses
shared video RAM). This was on a zippy Compaq Presario 3000 Athlon 64
3000+. All apps were downloaded from openoffice.org and mozilla.com.

Results for first run of app after booting (1st column is startup time):

      5 Firefox run1 native 416MB
      12 Firefox run1 wine 416MB
      11 Firefox run1 native 96MB
      15 Firefox run1 wine 96MB
      11 ooo run1 native 416MB
      15 ooo run1 wine 416MB
      60 ooo run1 native 96MB
      37 ooo run1 wine 96MB

So wine is 1.4 to 2.5 times slower at app startup generally, but when
ram is really short, win32 openoffice starts up with wine 1.5 times
*faster* than the native linux version! (Maybe because the Microsoft
tools are better at avoiding I/O or relocations during loading?)

I then measured how long it took to start up the app the second time,
when the cache was nice and hot:

      3 Firefox run2 native 416MB
      4 Firefox run2 wine 416MB
      4 ooo run2 native 416MB
      6 ooo run2 wine 416MB
      4 Firefox run2 native 96MB
      6 Firefox run2 wine 96MB
      36 ooo run2 native 96MB
      28 ooo run2 wine 96MB

The times are uniformly faster on the second run, but the patter
holds, i.e. wine is 1.4-1.5 times slower than native generally, but
win32 openoffice under wine is 1.5 times *faster* than the native
version when starved for RAM.

There was concern FC5 might be throwing off the results, but Dan tried
with Ubuntu 5.10 and found similar results.

==
Do you have any suggestions of the cause that OOo Linux version is
slower than Windows one?


--
Marius Andreiana