Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Start the program, close it, and start it again. What is the start time of the
second run?
Original comment by kamil.paral
on 30 May 2011 at 9:23
it's not much better, 8s, still too much.
Original comment by vladimir...@gmail.com
on 30 May 2011 at 9:28
Well, 8s is unusually slow, I admit. The warm (subsequent) run takes usually
about 4s for me. The cold (first) run can be between 10-20s, that's true. The
difference between cold and warm run shows how slow your harddisk is, for the
warm run the files are cached in memory. Since Esmska reads and writes only a
few very small files in ~/.config/esmska, I can't really help there. All of
that is really Java platform. By the way it works faster on Windows (not that
it could help, I know).
As for the warm start (CPU limited), I profiled the application few times in
the past and didn't find any places where optimization could noticeably help.
Patches would certainly be welcome, but I personally don't see any place to
patch.
I can advise you to use system/multiplatform appearance skin, it loads much
faster than Substance skins. Was that your case?
I'll try to profile the application once again, but the chances of improvement
are low.
Original comment by kamil.paral
on 30 May 2011 at 11:46
Unfortunately, changing the skin doesn't help. Tried all of them, still on 7-8
s. Thanks anyway.
Original comment by vladimir...@gmail.com
on 30 May 2011 at 12:31
I found a few places and did some improvements:
https://github.com/kparal/esmska/commit/14f0d94dd3a84ba96411665caeaf026465534974
But I wouldn't expect to cut it down more than by 1 sec. The longest time takes
to evaluate all gateway scripts, which are written in JavaScript. I can't do
much about it.
Also, if you have thousands of messages in your history, clearing it could help
a little too (otherwise don't bother).
Original comment by kamil.paral
on 31 May 2011 at 10:08
ok,thanks,i'll test it when new version is out
Original comment by vladimir...@gmail.com
on 1 Jun 2011 at 6:37
When I delete all gateways from disk except of the one I use, Esmska starts
much faster. Before that I had these gateways disabled. Probably Esmska
evaluates also disabled gateways?
Original comment by tpika...@gmail.com
on 6 Jun 2011 at 12:37
I can confirm that. It's 5-6s now (2s faster), with unused gateways deleted.
Original comment by vladimir...@gmail.com
on 6 Jun 2011 at 1:52
Yes, the longest time takes to load gateways. And I have to load them all,
because gateway name is defined inside the script (it may not match filename).
But I won't make you happy, next version of Esmska automatically downloads
updates, so if you delete some gateway, it will be automatically re-downloaded
again. (I am not quite sure now what happens if you have disabled the gateway
before deletion, I have to look at the source code).
If there were more gateways (like dozens), I would probably try to find a
different approach. But currently it's not worth the effort (but patches
welcome, of course). I may re-evaluate in the future.
It is also possible that some future Java update may speed up JavaScript
execution dramatically.
Original comment by kamil.paral
on 8 Jun 2011 at 1:47
> But I won't make you happy, next version of Esmska automatically downloads
updates,
> so if you delete some gateway, it will be automatically re-downloaded again.
> (I am not quite sure now what happens if you have disabled the gateway before
deletion,
> I have to look at the source code).
Even if you disable and the delete the gateway, it will be re-download again.
I've tried to approach this problem from a different angle and created issue
#380.
Original comment by kamil.paral
on 8 Jun 2011 at 6:28
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
vladimir...@gmail.com
on 30 May 2011 at 9:19