reasons why VW 7.x may be slower than 3.0

> there is an apparent slower startup time for VW 7.x as compared to 3.0,
> this is based on the 7.x ported version of the 3.0 app and frankly is
> really only noticeable on an older machine which happens to be the
> machine my boss tests on :), this for what is basically a ported
> version, sure there are some mods but to me they don't account for the
> diffs.
>
> So I'm wondering how "in tune" is 7.x to the newer Pentium
> architectures? As compared to a PIII. Also how in tune is it to versions
> of Windows. The machine in question is running Windows 2000.

> Charles A. Monteiro schrieb am 08.03.2007 20:32:
>> there is an apparent slower startup time for VW 7.x as compared to 3.0,
>> this is based on the 7.x ported version of the 3.0 app and frankly is
>> really only noticeable on an older machine which happens to be the
>> machine my boss tests on :), this for what is basically a ported
>> version, sure there are some mods but to me they don't account for the
>> diffs.
>>
>> So I'm wondering how "in tune" is 7.x to the newer Pentium
>> architectures? As compared to a PIII. Also how in tune is it to versions
>> of Windows. The machine in question is running Windows 2000.
>
> Hello Charles,
>
> although I certainly don't know exactly about what has changed, I
> somehow doubt that 7.x has longer startup times. It certainly was not my
> impression when our project did the upgrade. However, there may be
> reasons why your app starts up slower:
>
> - Memory policy and ObjectMemory sizesAtStartUp:
> The VM has changed quite a bit between 3.x and 7.x, becoming a lot
> faster, and much more efficient in free list management. This may
> require different settings of the MemoryPolicy parameters and the
> sizesAtStartUp. Are they the same in the two versions? Have there been
> changes in the MemoryPolicy code? E.g., it may slow down startup if the
> preferredGrowthIncrement and the growthRegimeUpperBound are too low, or
> if NewSpace is too small and many temporary objects are created.
>
> - In 7.x, the image may be saved compressed - decompression of the image
> may add to the startup time.
>
> - Did you actually measure if the modifications between the two versions
> really don't account for the difference? Sometimes, I am surprised when
> my performance optimizations slow down the application... ;-)
>
> - Is there anything in the 7.x image which wasn't in 3.x? Maybe a
> SubSystem which does a setup which didn't have an equivalent in 3.x?
>
> Best regards,
> Joachim Geidel

> Maybe it is related to my request in the 5i time frame that eliot slow  
> down startup so we could enjoy the nice splashscreen art at the time :)
> Bruce
>
> ---- "Charles A. Monteiro" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> there is an apparent slower startup time for VW 7.x as compared to 3.0,
>> this is based on the 7.x ported version of the 3.0 app and frankly is
>> really only noticeable on an older machine which happens to be the  
>> machine
>> my boss tests on :), this for what is basically a ported version, sure
>> there are some mods but to me they don't account for the diffs.
>>
>> So I'm wondering how "in tune" is 7.x to the newer Pentium  
>> architectures?
>> As compared to a PIII. Also how in tune is it to versions of Windows.  
>> The
>> machine in question is running Windows 2000.
>>
>> If Eliot is listening, it would be nice to have something authoritative
>> that I can show people here.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> --
>> Charles A. Monteiro
>> http://wiki.nycsmalltalk.org
>> http://www.monteirosfusion.com
>> http://monteirofusion.blogspot.com
>>

> well, it is true that the image is saved compressed and into a single
> exe  , should have thought about that. The memory policies are the same
> in both  versions but if anything 3.0 growed memory by a good bit since
> we do data  caching at startup i.e. it would not be an issue of settings
> being to "low"
>
> I have looked at the code differences. Of course, 7.x has now the
> notion  of subsystem startup and we have a user subsystem but I am not
> talking  that into account, our user subsystem is forced to start last
> and so I'm  actually measuring the time up to that event.
>
> Again, not that palpable of an issue on a modern machine.
>
> I guess that part of the issue is that image has bloated , some of that
> is  because I refuse to "strip" and so I therefore I compress. Our image
> with  everything loaded in i.e. when I don't do dynamic loading of
> parcels is  about 8.3 mb and I thing uncompressed that probably puts
> into the 17mb.  Yeah, probably image size is the one main culprit.
>
> thanks
>
> -Charles
>
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:47:09 -0500, Joachim Geidel  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Charles A. Monteiro schrieb am 08.03.2007 20:32:
>>
>>> there is an apparent slower startup time for VW 7.x as compared to 3.0,
>>> this is based on the 7.x ported version of the 3.0 app and frankly is
>>> really only noticeable on an older machine which happens to be the
>>> machine my boss tests on :), this for what is basically a ported
>>> version, sure there are some mods but to me they don't account for the
>>> diffs.
>>>
>>> So I'm wondering how "in tune" is 7.x to the newer Pentium
>>> architectures? As compared to a PIII. Also how in tune is it to versions
>>> of Windows. The machine in question is running Windows 2000.
>>
>>
>> Hello Charles,
>>
>> although I certainly don't know exactly about what has changed, I
>> somehow doubt that 7.x has longer startup times. It certainly was not my
>> impression when our project did the upgrade. However, there may be
>> reasons why your app starts up slower:
>>
>> - Memory policy and ObjectMemory sizesAtStartUp:
>> The VM has changed quite a bit between 3.x and 7.x, becoming a lot
>> faster, and much more efficient in free list management. This may
>> require different settings of the MemoryPolicy parameters and the
>> sizesAtStartUp. Are they the same in the two versions? Have there been
>> changes in the MemoryPolicy code? E.g., it may slow down startup if the
>> preferredGrowthIncrement and the growthRegimeUpperBound are too low, or
>> if NewSpace is too small and many temporary objects are created.
>>
>> - In 7.x, the image may be saved compressed - decompression of the image
>> may add to the startup time.
>>
>> - Did you actually measure if the modifications between the two versions
>> really don't account for the difference? Sometimes, I am surprised when
>> my performance optimizations slow down the application... ;-)
>>
>> - Is there anything in the 7.x image which wasn't in 3.x? Maybe a
>> SubSystem which does a setup which didn't have an equivalent in 3.x?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Joachim Geidel
>
>
>
>

> Charles,
> Image size could have a role there - 7.4 image out of box(without  
> anything of interest) is about 8 mb, while VW3.0 is about 3.5mb.
> So the size  would explain some load performance.
>
> Also with introduction of more things like subsystem, which do have  
> happen on the start up in the latest releases - the system has to  
> perform way more things, many more messages to dispatch and so on.
>
> My observation that old (VW 3.0)UI runs in order of magnitude faster  
> then similar UI on the latest versions.  And I think that there is no  
> excuse for that.  New faster hardware just masks the inefficiency  
> problem, but it still be there
>
> Charles A. Monteiro wrote:
>
>> the way we handle that is we don't use the splash screen but pop our  
>> own  art with a little progress bar thingy , really pretty snappy :)
>
> Can you share with us how you do that ?
>
>>
>>> Maybe it is related to my request in the 5i time frame that eliot  
>>> slow  down startup so we could enjoy the nice splashscreen art at the  
>>> time :)
>
> Should we all look at the VM source for some "delays" then ?
>
>>>> there is an apparent slower startup time for VW 7.x as compared to  
>>>> 3.0,
>>>> this is based on the 7.x ported version of the 3.0 app and frankly is
>>>> really only noticeable on an older machine which happens to be the  
>>>> machine
>
> I do test our application on the old PIII 1MHz pc - there I can see all  
> of the double redrawing and many other UI anomalies of our app. , which  
> are usually not noticeable on my 3MHz workstation.
>
>
>>>> my boss tests on :), this for what is basically a ported version, sure
>>>> there are some mods but to me they don't account for the diffs.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm wondering how "in tune" is 7.x to the newer Pentium  
>>>> architectures?
>
> I don't see it is a problem with the Processor architecture, If you run  
> your new and old environment on the same hardware.  It is more of an  
> inefficient Images bloat  problem.
>
> --Mark

> It could be simple explanation for the startup performance.
>
> I do remember reading a bit on what is happening on the startup with the  
> memory pointers.  The VM detects that if the platform it is starting on  
> is the same as platform it was saved on.  And if it is not then it does  
> some "swizzle" of the memory pointers.  I am a bit fuzzy on exact  
> details, but that may explain the slowness.  So if you build on let say  
> Latest AMD processor running XP  and then start it on old PIII with  
> win2k that swizzleing may take place.
>
> What if you build your deployment on your boss PC and then compare ?
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> --Mark
>
> Charles A. Monteiro wrote:
>> well, it is true that the image is saved compressed and into a single  
>> exe  , should have thought about that. The memory policies are the same  
>> in both  versions but if anything 3.0 growed memory by a good bit since  
>> we do data  caching at startup i.e. it would not be an issue of  
>> settings being to "low"
>>  I have looked at the code differences. Of course, 7.x has now the  
>> notion  of subsystem startup and we have a user subsystem but I am not  
>> talking  that into account, our user subsystem is forced to start last  
>> and so I'm  actually measuring the time up to that event.
>>  Again, not that palpable of an issue on a modern machine.
>>  I guess that part of the issue is that image has bloated , some of  
>> that is  because I refuse to "strip" and so I therefore I compress. Our  
>> image with  everything loaded in i.e. when I don't do dynamic loading  
>> of parcels is  about 8.3 mb and I thing uncompressed that probably puts  
>> into the 17mb.  Yeah, probably image size is the one main culprit.
>>  thanks
>>  -Charles
>>   On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:47:09 -0500, Joachim Geidel  
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles A. Monteiro schrieb am 08.03.2007 20:32:
>>>
>>>> there is an apparent slower startup time for VW 7.x as compared to  
>>>> 3.0,
>>>> this is based on the 7.x ported version of the 3.0 app and frankly is
>>>> really only noticeable on an older machine which happens to be the
>>>> machine my boss tests on :), this for what is basically a ported
>>>> version, sure there are some mods but to me they don't account for the
>>>> diffs.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm wondering how "in tune" is 7.x to the newer Pentium
>>>> architectures? As compared to a PIII. Also how in tune is it to  
>>>> versions
>>>> of Windows. The machine in question is running Windows 2000.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Charles,
>>>
>>> although I certainly don't know exactly about what has changed, I
>>> somehow doubt that 7.x has longer startup times. It certainly was not  
>>> my
>>> impression when our project did the upgrade. However, there may be
>>> reasons why your app starts up slower:
>>>
>>> - Memory policy and ObjectMemory sizesAtStartUp:
>>> The VM has changed quite a bit between 3.x and 7.x, becoming a lot
>>> faster, and much more efficient in free list management. This may
>>> require different settings of the MemoryPolicy parameters and the
>>> sizesAtStartUp. Are they the same in the two versions? Have there been
>>> changes in the MemoryPolicy code? E.g., it may slow down startup if the
>>> preferredGrowthIncrement and the growthRegimeUpperBound are too low, or
>>> if NewSpace is too small and many temporary objects are created.
>>>
>>> - In 7.x, the image may be saved compressed - decompression of the  
>>> image
>>> may add to the startup time.
>>>
>>> - Did you actually measure if the modifications between the two  
>>> versions
>>> really don't account for the difference? Sometimes, I am surprised when
>>> my performance optimizations slow down the application... ;-)
>>>
>>> - Is there anything in the 7.x image which wasn't in 3.x? Maybe a
>>> SubSystem which does a setup which didn't have an equivalent in 3.x?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Joachim Geidel
>>