Re: hand-wave-y cache performance data

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Brian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > On 1/10/12 8:26 PM, Jason Duell wrote:
> > > The take-away would seem to be that we're not doing anything really
> > > horrible (yay), and are competitive with IE/Opera, but we could
> > > improve somewhat (Chrome tends to be faster).  Nothing earth-
> > > shattering or market-defining, IMO.
> >
> > The main take-away for me was that for uncached loads of big complex
> > pages we do pretty comparably to Chrome, but for cached ones we're
> > way slower....
>
> This is how I interpreted it too.
>
> I think also that Taras's concern is more about startup time issues with
> the cache, with more of an emphasis on worse-case performance as opposed to
> the best case (good hardware) configurations like this test seems to be
> emphasizing.
>

Do you guys think that it would be useful to get somebody to benchmark how
much overhead our cache introduces?  Doing this much worse with the cache
enabled is bad IMO.  A simple first step would be for somebody to submit
Talos runs on a try server job with the disk (and maybe mem) cache disabled
and compare some numbers...

--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>