[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

On 08/07/2013 03:00 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> Hi Sina
>
> You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to
> point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your
> laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five
> to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a
> modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
I don't think it's the fault of my laptop (at least not its CPU, but
maybe its RAM speed). Because I have a single core Pentium 4 @2.8GHz
desktop PC with 2*1GB RAM (lower or equal frequency than 677MHz) and
open and save operations on LO Writer is faster on that!
I guess the problem is because of LO Writer being single-threaded which
doesn't uses all power of my CPU and RAM.

> You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit.
When I have 4GB RAM (2*2GB @677MHz) I know I must have a 64bit linux. So
yes, I have a LMDEx64 (64bit). All my installed software are 64bit too.

> If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual
> RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is
> a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it
> help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6
> or 8GB even better. 
I'm sure that 4GB RAM is even more than enough for my work. Because I
monitored the system using XFCE System Monitor (or htop) and only 30-40%
of my RAM was used. Unfortunately LO Writer only used less than 400MB of
my Physical Memory, while I had more than 2GB available and unused,
despite the fact that LO Settings for Memory were set to their maximum
(Graphics Cache->Use for LibreOffice=256MB, Memory per object=20MB,
Remove from memory after=00:30, Cache for inserted objects->Number of
objects=100, LibreOffice QuickStarter=Disable).

> And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow
> compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
I can't do for that now, 667MHz is the max FBS of the laptop's
motherboard and I don't have enough money to buy a new laptop.

> In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of
> my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin
> speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for
> performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not
> lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged
> similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer
> focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general
> population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like
> monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence
> in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to
> 7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case
> of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
I have replaced HDD of my laptop myself. So I'm sure that it's a Western
Digital 500GB @5400rpm. However I don't think that it's a HDD problem
because first the final file is less that 7MB and its write will not
take so much time. Second I noticed the HDD busy LED of my laptop and
either during save or open it was not busy very much.

> I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about
> a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only
> 2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB
> SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible
> performance boost, in everything running on it.
The SSD may increase performance of OS but in the case of LO open and
save, why should it increase performance? Why LO open and save may need
heavy I/O operations while the final written file is only ~7MB and there
are more than 2GB of free ram which can eliminate its need to disk cache?

> And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for
> my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but
> supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.
Dunno! Surely a hardware upgrade will improve the performance but in
this case I guess power of a single core of CPU and RAM speed are more
effective than other factors, mainly because of wrong LO architecture.

Best

> Regards
>
> Andrew Brown
>
> On 06/08/2013 11:41 PM, Sina Momken wrote:
> > I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
> > other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
> > secs is not a huge win too!
> > I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
> > documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
> > manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
> > can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
> > Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:
> >
> > > From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
> >     Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"
> >
> > > From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
> >     Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"
> >
> > > From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
> >     Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"
> >
> > > From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
> >     Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"
> >
> >
> > Other minimized software:
> > - Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
> > - Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
> > - XChat with many channels open minimized
> > - GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
> > - FreeU proxy software minimized
> > - No browser open
> >
> > File size:
> > - A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
> > - .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
> > - .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes
> >
> > Software spec:
> > - Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
> > - XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
> > - LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
> > - Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
> > - XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)
> >
> > Hardware Spec:
> > - Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
> > - CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
> > - RAM: 4GB @677MHz
> > - GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
> > - HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM
> >
> >
> > This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
> > when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
> > realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
> > Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
> > dual core @2.2GHz laptop. Being single-threaded for such a heavy
> > software is not acceptable in a world of multi-core CPUs.
> >
> > Another limitation of LO Writer is that when it saves a document it
> > blocks the whole software and you have to wait until completion of
> > saving. This issue is solved in MS Word because MSO is a multi-threading
> > software. Because I must save my document at least each 30min therefor I
> > have to rest each 30min for at least 2min because LO Writer takes this
> > amount of time when it saves my huge document.
> > I'm not pleased with save and open operations of LO Writer at all.
> >
> > Regards,
> >     Sina Momken
> >
> >
> >
> > On 08/05/2013 05:47 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> > > Gents
> > >
> > > Kracked, a good reply. If I may add my two cents worth to performance of
> > > start-ups here.
> > >
> > > This is my system hardware top of the range in December 2007, and still
> > > hops today. The only things updated since 2008 was the video card and
> > > the SATA III hard drives, and the O/S's.
> > >
> > > Windows 7 Ult. x64 / Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Dual boot, Intel Core2
> > > Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB Video,
> > > SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows
> > > Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB
> > > (Linux), Thermaltake Toughpower 750W PSU
> > >
> > > Also my analogy of a well tuned and clean system, will run top gun for
> > > many years compared to cutting edge modern hardware today getting bogged
> > > down with willy nilly installed and unmaintained software (but again if
> > > this is maintained it will remain a top gun from it's day of purchase
> > > and clobber my hardware performance). I see and read too many who throw
> > > good money at high end systems only to have them slow a few months
> > > later, and many who poer poer the idea of cleaning a system (registry
> > > and boot processes), and defragging it. So here's my tested speeds of
> > > this system above.
> > >
> > > PC switch on to ready state to use (Windows 7 64bit, with a dual boot
> > > menu selection and the login screen) = 40 seconds
> > > PC switch on to ready state to use (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit, with a dual boot
> > > menu selection and the login screen) = 20 seconds
> > >
> > > LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
> > > 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> > > LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu
> > > 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> > > LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
> > > 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> > > LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04
> > > 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> > > LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
> > > 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> > > LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu
> > > 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> > >
> > > All the above to load a file directly i.e click on the data file which
> > > loads the appropriate app (and I chose files of around 5MB - 4 seconds
> > > for Writer, 5 seconds for Calc and 5 seconds for Impress in both O/S's.
> > >
> > > PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark
> > > (Windows 7 64bit) = 15 seconds
> > > PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark
> > > (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) = 5 seconds
> > >
> > > My LO splash logo on both O/S's is displayed in under 1 second and the
> > > scroll bar in the splash logo takes under 1 second to show it's loading
> > > state, the balance of the time in the 3 seconds is loading the app, and
> > > I don't use the quickstarter option and have never done. I have supplied
> > > the times for clicking on the data file to load the app.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > On 05/08/2013 02:10 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
> > > > Hi :)
> > > > With MSO the splash screen appears immediately and keeps doing things
> > > > to make it clear it is doing something.
> > > >
> > > > With LO it is ages before the splash screen appears so it looks like
> > > > it hasn't reacted at all.
> > > >
> > > > So people don't trust it and they think that more time passes.  It
> > > > might be good to video the same system starting each up in turn.  Also
> > > > i think the Windows version is a lot slower to start up than the
> > > > Ubuntu one.
> > > >
> > > > LO is getting better but it just doesn't look like it is.  Perception
> > > > is often more important than reality with things like this.
> > > > Regards from
> > > > Tom :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster<webmaster@krackedpress.com>
> > > > > To:users@global.libreoffice.org
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 12:49
> > > > > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For me, I do not use the Quickstart option.  Their are some hassles
> > > > > with
> > > > > upgrading some extensions if that is "on" all the time.  I find that
> > > > > without using that option, I have the package load up and usable for
> > > > > editing quickly enough for my needs.  It is faster than many other
> > > > > packages I use.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "boot" time for LO is much faster now that in the past.  Also,
> > > > > compared to MS Office, it is still faster.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is one other "time" that needs to be measured.  The time it
> > > > > takes
> > > > > for you to be able to start editing.  Sure you can have a package
> > > > > start
> > > > > up fast and show its "page view", but it does no good if you cannot
> > > > > start working with the package if it take another minute or so to
> > > > > allow
> > > > > you to start working with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take Writer or Word.  You start the package by double-clicking the
> > > > > icon
> > > > > in the menu or on the screen.  Then you get a splash screen. After
> > > > > that
> > > > > the document or a new one is seen in the "page view" window.  Now, how
> > > > > long does it take from there to be able to click on a menu or start
> > > > > typing editing the document?  That is where I had a problem with MSO
> > > > > 2003.  Sure that is ten years out of date, but it was the last version
> > > > > of MSO I actually work with on a regular basis.  Since 2010 I have
> > > > > been
> > > > > a "Linux" person with Ubuntu as my default desktop OS.  So I have not
> > > > > tried the newest version of MSO.  But, with Writer, the time ti takes
> > > > > from opening of the page view window to being able to edit or click on
> > > > > the menus has been reduced by a large percentage since I started using
> > > > > LO in its early days.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is the real question.  How much wait time do you have between
> > > > > clicking on the icon to the print of being able to work with the
> > > > > package.  No package is as fast as people would like, i.e. click and
> > > > > edit in a matter of a 2 or 3 seconds.  Right now, with 2 browser
> > > > > windows
> > > > > open, this email package and 3 utilities on the screen, my Ubuntu
> > > > > install on a mid-range quad core desktop from Feb. 2010 , takes
> > > > > about 7
> > > > > seconds from click to editing.  That is fast enough for me.  I have
> > > > > run
> > > > > packages that take 15 to 30 seconds to open up to the point of using
> > > > > it.  In this day of wanting things as quick as possible, 15 to 30
> > > > > seconds may be too long for some people.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, for those of you who have been using PCs since its early days of
> > > > > DOS or even Windows 95, these start up times are super fast
> > > > > compared to
> > > > > those older systems, even with the less powerful packages that we
> > > > > used,
> > > > > like PC-Write for word processing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 08/04/2013 07:21 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
> > > > > > Hi :)
> > > > > > You could have either of them use their Quickstarter but it's a pain
> > > > > > and kinda blocks having the other one on your machine at the same
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > > Regards from
> > > > > > Tom :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Tim Lloyd<tim.lloyd@gmx.com>
> > > > > > > To:"users@global.libreoffice.org"  <users@global.libreoffice.org>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 0:15
> > > > > > > Subject: [libreoffice-users] start up speed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I saw a question on the Fedora Forum regarding the "boot" speed
> > > > > > > of LO
> > > > > > > which is impressive especially compared to old versions of OOo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this has been discussed here in the past but I can't find
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > specific posts. Is there anything running in the background which
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > LO start up faster?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe e-mail to:users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
> > > > > > > Problems?
> > > > > > > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Posting guidelines + more:
> > > > > > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> > > > > > > List archive:http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> > > > > > > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot
> > > > > > > be deleted
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > To unsubscribe e-mail to:users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
> > > > > Problems?
> > > > > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > > > > Posting guidelines +
> > > > > more:http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> > > > > List archive:http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> > > > > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot
> > > > > be deleted



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted