Re: cache effectiveness testing
Taras Glek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mozilla.devel.netlib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/17/2012 2:55 PM, Taras Glek wrote: > On 1/17/2012 12:55 PM, Taras Glek wrote: >> Hi, >> As part of the Snappy effort, we asked QA to compare cache effectiveness >> of Firefox against Opera (which some people claim has a superior cache). >> We have some preliminary data now. >> >> >> The testplan is described at >> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/Snappy/Testing:BFCache_Sprint#Reference_Test_Case >> >> >> >> I put up a snapshot of the results at >> http://people.mozilla.com/~tglek/snappy/cache1.html >> >> I was suspecting that our cache hit-rates may be worse, but the data >> proved that theory wrong. >> >> Data indicates that either writing to our cache is expensive or we are >> not http-pipelining/etc properly. My theory is that disk cache is to >> blame, so I asked QA to rerun this comparing to Firefox to Firefox with >> disk cache disabled. > > No-disk-cache followup appears to confirm that writing cache absolutely > annihilates pageload perf. > > http://people.mozilla.com/~tglek/snappy/cache2.html > > I wonder if this is a symptom of > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=695399 Sorry for the spam, I meant https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=717761. Taras