About:Snappy

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Post Reply
User avatar
Omega X
Posts: 8225
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
Location: A Parallel Dimension...

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Omega X »

NoNameReally wrote:
patrickjdempsey wrote:Adobe hasn't declared Flash dead, Adobe declared Flash too difficult to deploy for mobile.

My Android has flash... :-k

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/09/adob ... e-devices/
User avatar
sdrocking
Posts: 778
Joined: October 2nd, 2010, 7:03 am
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: About:Snappy

Post by sdrocking »

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/11/game-c ... ctive.html

Hope we have incremental GC in Firefox soon.
Mark342
Posts: 277
Joined: September 14th, 2010, 4:15 am

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Mark342 »

Benchmark linked to in that post: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/b ... index.html
Dang, Chrome's previous GC did really bad there.
Tons and Tons of pauses.
Good for them.
User avatar
Omega X
Posts: 8225
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
Location: A Parallel Dimension...

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Omega X »

Wait! Where are all of the people who claimed that Chrome already had IncrementalGC?
Prof. Martelo
Posts: 144
Joined: January 1st, 2010, 10:40 am

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Prof. Martelo »

For me:

Firefox 8.0

8000/320 58(max = 495) ms 1061 frames
0-10ms => 1
40-50ms => 368
50-60ms => 544
60-70ms => 118
70-80ms => 6
80-90ms => 4
90-100ms => 6
110-120ms => 1
120-130ms => 1
130-140ms => 1
140-150ms => 1
170-180ms => 2
190-200ms => 2
210-220ms => 2
250-260ms => 1
270-280ms => 1
300-310ms => 1
490-500ms => 1

Nightly 11.0a1 (2011-11-22)
8000/320 53(max = 435) ms 1160 frames
0-10ms => 1
40-50ms => 392
50-60ms => 744
60-70ms => 5
70-80ms => 3
80-90ms => 4
90-100ms => 3
110-120ms => 1
130-140ms => 1
190-200ms => 2
210-220ms => 1
300-310ms => 1
340-350ms => 1
430-440ms => 1

Chrome 17.0.942.0
8000/320 34(max = 390) ms 1544 frames
0-10ms => 1
10-20ms => 6
20-30ms => 234
30-40ms => 1056
40-50ms => 138
50-60ms => 17
60-70ms => 13
70-80ms => 6
80-90ms => 25
90-100ms => 33
100-110ms => 9
140-150ms => 1
170-180ms => 1
200-210ms => 2
240-250ms => 1
390-400ms => 1

Opera 12.00 alpha Build 1155
8000/320 87(max = 199) ms 894 frames
Score 00-10ms => 1
50-60ms => 220
60-70ms => 372
70-80ms => 221
80-90ms => 32
90-100ms => 32
100-110ms => 7
110-120ms => 1
120-130ms => 2
150-160ms => 1
170-180ms => 2
180-190ms => 2
190-200ms => 1
Mark342
Posts: 277
Joined: September 14th, 2010, 4:15 am

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Mark342 »

Omega X wrote:Wait! Where are all of the people who claimed that Chrome already had IncrementalGC?

Yeah, the whole thing is kinda confusing.
I can find sources from 2008 that claim Chrome uses an incremental GC.
I can find more recent sources (including Mozilla JS devs) that claim Chrome uses a generational GC.
Now Google is proclaiming the glory of their new incremental GC (and implying their last one was not incremental)

I'm guessing their previous GC was really a generational GC, and now they have added incremental collecting to it to shorten pauses caused by long lived objects (short lived objects are already very fast to collect in a generational GC).
So Mozilla is doing it in the opposite order of google.
Starting with their Mark&Sweep, adding Incremental, then adding Generational.

Of course, Mozilla's course of action makes sense: Incremental will make all pauses short (thus making web applications/games more of a joy to use), then Generational will actually improve throughput of GC heavy applications full of short lived objects.
User avatar
Northtech
Posts: 20
Joined: July 1st, 2011, 8:06 am
Location: Russia

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Northtech »

ff9:

Code: Select all

8000/320 5681(max = 5681) ms 718 frames

Score 0
0-10ms   => 1
20-30ms   => 3
30-40ms   => 307
40-50ms   => 152
50-60ms   => 130
60-70ms   => 53
70-80ms   => 22
80-90ms   => 6
100-110ms   => 12
110-120ms   => 4
120-130ms   => 3
130-140ms   => 4
140-150ms   => 3
150-160ms   => 1
170-180ms   => 1
200-210ms   => 1
220-230ms   => 1
280-290ms   => 1
370-380ms   => 1
450-460ms   => 1
630-640ms   => 1
1040-1050ms   => 1
1090-1100ms   => 1
1120-1130ms   => 1
2030-2040ms   => 1
2050-2060ms   => 1
2080-2090ms   => 1
2650-2660ms   => 1
2850-2860ms   => 1
4050-4060ms   => 1
5680-5690ms   => 1



Code: Select all

8000/320 59(max = 206) ms 1261 frames

Score 1
10-20ms   => 1
30-40ms   => 360
40-50ms   => 39
50-60ms   => 830
60-70ms   => 17
70-80ms   => 5
80-90ms   => 2
140-150ms   => 1
160-170ms   => 1
190-200ms   => 1
200-210ms   => 4
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: About:Snappy

Post by patrickjdempsey »

I got a pretty similar score to Prof.Martelo running on a W2K machine (which Chrome won't even run on), which is really impressive to me. Firefox 8, with MozillaZine in two tabs and the test in the third tab:

8000/320 59(max = 326) ms 1091 frames
0-10ms => 1
40-50ms => 394
50-60ms => 116
60-70ms => 566
70-80ms => 5
80-90ms => 1
100-110ms => 2
120-130ms => 2
200-210ms => 1
220-230ms => 1
250-260ms => 1
320-330ms => 1
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
nadark
Posts: 491
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 9:12 am

Re: About:Snappy

Post by nadark »

20s test with since after 60-70ms doesn't seem to be a issue with most users.

Nightly
8000/320 17(max = 91) ms 1188 frames

Score 100
0-10ms => 31
10-20ms => 1149
20-30ms => 3
30-40ms => 1
40-50ms => 1
50-60ms => 1
80-90ms => 1
90-100ms => 1



Fx8
8000/320 15(max = 104) ms 1184 frames

Score 109
0-10ms => 6
10-20ms => 1170
20-30ms => 2
40-50ms => 4
50-60ms => 1
100-110ms => 1

Would dynamic sites open like gmail and facebook impact this? Would the GC slow down if it's pruning from 1 or 4 tabs? I'm genuinely curious.
User avatar
Zlip792
Posts: 1340
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 1:47 pm
Location: Pakistan

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Zlip792 »

Omega X wrote:Wait! Where are all of the people who claimed that Chrome already had IncrementalGC?

http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=9950
As per this, I can say they improved their old IGC while from blog post even I am in trouble thinking it is new GC.
iwod
Posts: 1033
Joined: July 18th, 2003, 10:09 pm

Re: About:Snappy

Post by iwod »

Hopefully we should have IGC in Nightly too.
User avatar
kmc
Posts: 332
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 3:01 am
Location: China

Re: About:Snappy

Post by kmc »

Nightly:

Code: Select all

8000/320 20(max = 91) ms 2970 frames

Score 50
0-10ms   => 1
10-20ms   => 777
20-30ms   => 2172
30-40ms   => 7
70-80ms   => 2
80-90ms   => 9
90-100ms   => 2


Chromium 17.0.948

Code: Select all

8000/320 16(max = 280) ms 3464 frames
Score 19

0-10ms    => 11
10-20ms    => 3251
20-30ms    => 25
30-40ms    => 109
40-50ms    => 55
50-60ms    => 2
60-70ms    => 1
80-90ms    => 1
90-100ms    => 4
100-110ms    => 2
110-120ms    => 2
280-290ms    => 1
Growing up with Firefox
User avatar
ferongr
Posts: 537
Joined: February 16th, 2011, 9:51 am

Re: About:Snappy

Post by ferongr »

Nightly

Code: Select all

8000/320 47(max = 360) ms 1313 frames

Score 1
0-10ms   => 1
30-40ms   => 383
40-50ms   => 832
50-60ms   => 73
60-70ms   => 6
70-80ms   => 2
80-90ms   => 1
90-100ms   => 1
100-110ms   => 1
120-130ms   => 1
130-140ms   => 2
140-150ms   => 1
150-160ms   => 1
180-190ms   => 1
200-210ms   => 1
210-220ms   => 1
230-240ms   => 1
250-260ms   => 1
260-270ms   => 1
320-330ms   => 1
360-370ms   => 1


Chrome Dev

Code: Select all

8000/320 53(max = 378) ms 1137 frames
Score 1

0-10ms    => 2
30-40ms    => 1
40-50ms    => 460
50-60ms    => 572
60-70ms    => 50
70-80ms    => 3
80-90ms    => 1
90-100ms    => 1
100-110ms    => 8
110-120ms    => 11
120-130ms    => 17
130-140ms    => 6
140-150ms    => 1
200-210ms    => 1
280-290ms    => 2
370-380ms    => 1


I don't see the supposed benefits of IGC on a slower system (single-core s754 Sempron 3100). Nightly pauses once every 5-10 seconds for 250ms, while Chrome pauses every second for 100-150ms when the maximum amount of balls circle, and the experience is a lot worse. I hope the implementation that ends up landing in Nightly is superior to this.
What Falken giveth, the tōge taketh away.
User avatar
Omega X
Posts: 8225
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
Location: A Parallel Dimension...

Re: About:Snappy

Post by Omega X »

IGC in Firefox is aimed at reducing the pauses even further.
WonderCsabo
Posts: 2230
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 9:29 am
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: About:Snappy

Post by WonderCsabo »

BTW, it's interesting that Nightly performs better in this test, without IGC.
But real-world HTML5 animations are much better with Chrome...
Post Reply