![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
YES my point exactly........
Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account all of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally view performance.
Some faster systems, for whatever reasons, load and run LO slower than the "slower CPU" called slower due to number of cores or the speed at which it is running at.
So all it opinion until someone decides to "prove" those opinions and results on an individual basis.
Just to give you a "bloat alert". My Ubuntu 12.04 LTS system, after all of its updates and upgrades from the repository, and the fact that it seems a lot of the older packages were left on the system, my OS folders now total about 98-GB.
1,000 GB total
less 78.7 GB free space
less 823.5 GB in the /home folder and sub-folders
making all of the other folders in the "filesystem" totaling 97.8 GB for the OS.
This OS figure also includes the 11 GB swap and a 11 GB extended partition [for what Ubuntu uses it for I do not know, but it created it].
So take away the 22 GB of partitions outside of that main partition, you get
75.8 GB of OS file space for 12.04LTS plus the two partitions it needs to run.
If I used a 10-15 GB for the OS, I would be sunk.
I do not separate the /home into its own partition, since all of the docs and "help" seems to confuse me on how to set up all of the different partitions during the install process. In a few months, I hope to replace that 1 TB drive with a 2 TB one. I planned on creating a 500 GB partition for the OS file system including the OS, /home, and the needed swap and other partition[s] needed. The rest of the drive, 1.5 TB, will be used as a separate data "drive" so I can have a smaller /home folder size and keep everything not actively worked on out of the /home folder.
Also, I have taken a 2 TB internal drive and used it for the first stage backup, or internal backup, of the essential /home folder files, like the "hidden dot folders" and things like my photo folder that contains sub-folders by year and then month of all my digital photo since Sept. 2005 - when I bought my first digital camera. I have a whole box of photos needing to be scanned in from the early 70's to then, that I will "one day" get around to scanning an archiving.
Unfortunately, I have more internal drive space than external drive backup space. So I need to start buying more of those drives to back up my system. It does help that most of my 2nd 2-TB drive is used as an internal backup, so it currently does not need external a separate external backup. But I do have one 1-TB and two 2-TB drives, currently, and later at least 6-TB [maybe 7, 8, or more] internal storage to be backed up externally.
YES my point exactly........
Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account all
of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally
view performance.
They are more than some guesswork which I may say from myself. They are
not only my opinions. Actually I could prove my claims to some degree
using some simple experiments.
Yeah, my experiments were not comprehensive enough to certainly conclude
from, but they can prove my claims with good probability (at least in my
case).
Proving by experimentation is not like in the math which can 100%
confirm a lemma. One must limit his experiments based on his time and
efforts; We can not put a ball down to ground on each planet to test the
gravity theory of Newton!
All what I want to say is that I believe based on my (not comprehensive)
experiments, my claims about LO performance is more than just a
GUESSWORK or OPINION!
Regards
Hi 
My guess is thatUbuntu created an 11Gb Extended Partition purely to put the 11Gb Swap in. Not quite sure why it did that but the installer tries to make sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Regards from
Tom
Swap is just about on all systems in a separate partition and it is a very good idea to have that on a separate physical drive for performance reasons.
In *nix systems the type of file system (not every distro has the same "preferred" file system for the same type of file types) you use can also have drastic performance differences and it also depends what you put on that file systems, e.g. lots of document type files are not the same then e.g. a database data folder etc etc.
Werner
Yes, there are a lot of people who can give others "proof" of what their system can do. Either by an active demonstration or via benchmark packages.
I love doing active presentations to non-believers.
I have taken and proved that LO can do things that I claim, by bringing my laptop[s] to these people and run LO through some tests. Then I hand them a USB drive and ask them to place some "sample" documents they use on a daily/weakly basis and then open them up with LO and show them that "yes" LO can work with your files "easily".
I once had them click on their Word icon on their multi-core Windows desktop and the same time as I click on the LO icon on my Windows boot partition of my Windows/Ubuntu dual booting laptop[s]. Now that we have Win7 as the "new standard" for business computers, I can use either my Win7 Home Premium laptop or my Win7 Professional one. Both are dual core laptops, but the "Professional" install is on the slower system. One day I will take the "Home" laptop and make it "Professional" to solve some "back port" issues where "Home" might not allow certain XP and Vista era packages to be installed while "Professional" has not problem installing those packages.
So having a live demonstration on what LO can do and how fast it can do those things is a good "marketing tool".
Having a "benchmark" style of information sheet tends to make many manager's eyes "cloud over and ears stop hearing you" as you discuss the benchmark results.
Yes, there can be some "guesswork" for some things, and some subjective issues, but it does not mean that those "guesses" are wrong.
The seconds count or timed with a stopwatch is not very accurate if it is the difference of a second plus/minus. But most people can not tell the difference between 3 and 4 seconds, or 3.4 and 4.1 seconds. We are not built that way, or most of us are not build that way.
YES my point exactly........
Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account all
of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally
view performance.They are more than some guesswork which I may say from myself. They are
not only my opinions. Actually I could prove my claims to some degree
using some simple experiments.
Yeah, my experiments were not comprehensive enough to certainly conclude
from, but they can prove my claims with good probability (at least in my
case).
Proving by experimentation is not like in the math which can 100%
confirm a lemma. One must limit his experiments based on his time and
efforts; We can not put a ball down to ground on each planet to test the
gravity theory of Newton!
All what I want to say is that I believe based on my (not comprehensive)
experiments, my claims about LO performance is more than just a
GUESSWORK or OPINION!Regards
Some faster systems, for whatever reasons, load and run LO slower than
the "slower CPU" called slower due to number of cores or the speed at
which it is running at.So all it opinion until someone decides to "prove" those opinions and
results on an individual basis.I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would load
slower in Word.The question really is how well does Writer load both. How well it load
the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones. Both with the same average
number of graphics per page.Then look at the simple 20 or 50 page documents vs. the very complex
ones.Get an over all load times for the same documents on Writer and Word on
various Windows systems and various version of Windows [Win7 - Home/H.
Premium/Professional - 64-bit and 32-bit. Vista versions in both 32 and
64 bit.] Then look into the same documents with Writer run on some of
the different version of Linux [32-bit and 64-bit OS] such as Ubuntu,
Fedora, Mint, Mageia, Arch, etc., etc..Then with all that data make a chart and add to it every time someone
tries the "standard" documents on different systems and specifications.Then we would have a chart that will tell us how much different systems
and specifications effect the load and run speeds of LO, Writer
specifically, and Word specifically.Does more RAM or more CPU power influence it most. How does 4.0.4 vs
4.1.0 compare on the same system/specs. How much faster a 64-bit
install is over the same distro's 32-bit version.What you're requesting here is an exact benchmark with will take so much
time and effort. Besides different file formats, size and heaviness of
the file, different OSes and different HW Architectures, the exact
conditions of the system during experiment (like the software and
processes running in the background, etc.) and the number of repetitions
for each experiment must also be specified. Ideally no other excessive
processes must be run and each experiment must run more than 10 times.
It's accurate to write a test program to automatically test these
factors with any repetition desired.But doing all these is a major job and takes much time and effort. If
I'd done this before, I've published this on my website or other major
website, not on this mailing list which doesn't have many visitors.I only wanted to show you a rule of thumb about LO Writer dealing with
heavy files.Without these types of data charted, we could just say what we "think"
is true or want works better for you.To be honest, when I was using it and it worked well, my AMD64 CPU
laptop worked better than my Intel dual core laptop. When I asked why
my older slower AMD laptop worked faster creating the .iso file using
DeVeDe .avi/.mp4 file to DVD-movie disc conversion tool, I was told that
the faster dual core laptop was not powerful enough to do the work even
though my older slower AMD64 laptop could do it just fine.So, no matter how I think it should not be true, sometimes newer faster
systems that we think is more powerful and faster might now be a good as
we think and the older slower less powerful systems might actually work
better at some job or package. Slower single core laptop working better
than a faster speed dual core laptop, does not make sense, but in
practice it works that way.I doesn't say that. Actually I exactly said opposite of that. I have a
single core pentium4 @2.8GHz desktop which runs LO Writer faster than my
dual core core2due @2.2GHz laptop. Maybe power of both cores of my
laptop be more than power of cpu of my desktop, but power of a single
core of my laptop is surely less than power of a single core of my
desktop and because LO only uses 1 core, my older desktop PC wins.So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked
out. Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.Making a precise benchmark is always a valuable and highly regarded
work, can practically assess a software and help to make it better.I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and
Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.Regards,
Sina Momken
<snip>
Well, in the Disk utility, there is a gray area that is the ext4 partition. The small space left it split in half, top half and bottom half. It sure reads like they are separate partitions, since they are both named using the "partition" word. Extended partition and Swap Partition. Unless they created the Extended partition and created a new partition within it, that is.
Still whether it is 11 GB or 22 GB of space, it still is either 87 GB for the OS folders or 76 GB [roughly]. 76 to 87 GB is a lot more than your 10-15 GB you tell me is needed. Sure, when I do a new/fresh install of a Ubuntu system on a drive, the OS file space takes up little of the disk. BUT, and the "big-but" is what size do you need to have after a year or more? I installed 12.04LTS a few days after it came out. I did a clean install after backing up all my /home files. Then I restored all my data/files and then started to install all of the packages I needed to install to run the system the way I like.
12.04 comes with Unity desktop environment. I do not like it, so I install MATE. Then, there are some packages that need some of the KDE files. K3b and other packages and utilities I use are "default" package with KDE and seems to want some KDE system files installed. 2+ desktop environments can add space to the OS. The "plus" is the KDE system files. I use to install the FULL set of packages for KDE d.e. but decided that I did not need to do that when I did my 12.04LTS upgrade. I let the packages install whatever dependencies they needed.
Hi
My guess is thatUbuntu created an 11Gb Extended Partition purely to put the 11Gb Swap in. Not quite sure why it did that but the installer tries to make sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Regards from
Tom________________________________
From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 12:45
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speedJust to give you a "bloat alert". My Ubuntu 12.04 LTS system, after all
of its updates and upgrades from the repository, and the fact that it
seems a lot of the older packages were left on the system, my OS folders
now total about 98-GB.1,000 GB total
less 78.7 GB free space
less 823.5 GB in the /home folder and sub-folders
making all of the other folders in the "filesystem" totaling 97.8 GB for
the OS.This OS figure also includes the 11 GB swap and a 11 GB extended
partition [for what Ubuntu uses it for I do not know, but it created it].So take away the 22 GB of partitions outside of that main partition, you get
75.8 GB of OS file space for 12.04LTS plus the two partitions it needs
to run.If I used a 10-15 GB for the OS, I would be sunk.
I do not separate the /home into its own partition, since all of the
docs and "help" seems to confuse me on how to set up all of the
different partitions during the install process. In a few months, I
hope to replace that 1 TB drive with a 2 TB one. I planned on creating
a 500 GB partition for the OS file system including the OS, /home, and
the needed swap and other partition[s] needed. The rest of the drive,
1.5 TB, will be used as a separate data "drive" so I can have a smaller
/home folder size and keep everything not actively worked on out of the
/home folder.Also, I have taken a 2 TB internal drive and used it for the first stage
backup, or internal backup, of the essential /home folder files, like
the "hidden dot folders" and things like my photo folder that contains
sub-folders by year and then month of all my digital photo since Sept.
2005 - when I bought my first digital camera. I have a whole box of
photos needing to be scanned in from the early 70's to then, that I will
"one day" get around to scanning an archiving.Unfortunately, I have more internal drive space than external drive
backup space. So I need to start buying more of those drives to back up
my system. It does help that most of my 2nd 2-TB drive is used as an
internal backup, so it currently does not need external a separate
external backup. But I do have one 1-TB and two 2-TB drives, currently,
and later at least 6-TB [maybe 7, 8, or more] internal storage to be
backed up externally.
<snip>
YES my point exactly........
Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account all
of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally
view performance.
They are more than some guesswork which I may say from myself. They are
not only my opinions. Actually I could prove my claims to some degree
using some simple experiments.
Yeah, my experiments were not comprehensive enough to certainly conclude
from, but they can prove my claims with good probability (at least in my
case).
Proving by experimentation is not like in the math which can 100%
confirm a lemma. One must limit his experiments based on his time and
efforts; We can not put a ball down to ground on each planet to test the
gravity theory of Newton!
All what I want to say is that I believe based on my (not comprehensive)
experiments, my claims about LO performance is more than just a
GUESSWORK or OPINION!
Regards
Sorry typo, meant to read 100GB not MB. Allowing for anything FAT coming along.
Andrew Brown
This is to what I have noticed by many who become anal retentive in this matter, and obsessive compulsive, over their possessions for want of a better word. I see it in the way they buy their worldly possessions from cars, to HiFi, to mobile phones, to their homes and it's contents. All of it must have a spec sheet a mile long to "PROVE" it's the best out there and better than yours and mine.
We are losing site of reality, as you covered, over .1 or .2 of a second. There's a real world we live in going to pot and soon we will battle for clean water and wholesome fresh produce, never mind the rapid loss of natural flora and fauna, over how many seconds a piece of silicon and soft, as in the real sense of what soft means, code is running.
My original purpose of starting this post was to simply show, in a real world use that LO is not slow by any means to any competitive product and does the job, for the majority of users, who are far in reality from their self proclaimed power users status, as equally good as any competitive product, but again my first paragraph observation is surfacing.
The bottom line there are millions of users of LO, and other users of non-MS products, working perfectly fine with it and could not really give a hoot of it's millisecond or second performance.
Andrew Brown
Hi
+1
That is why i dont think it's worth us spending our time doing benchmarking. Another reason is that we are obviously a fairly biased bunch with only a few individuals that may be biased the other way or be "on the fence". Anyone else looking at the results of a serious bench-marking study done by us will assume we have too much bias.
Studies into this sort of thing are usually paid for by MS but they are usually able to hide the MS involvement sufficiently that people get the impression it's an independent bit of research.
So, a quick bit of bench-marking by a few individuals has been great. It's been really good to see and compare some of the different stats people have been giving but its not worth us spending much time over getting more than a "rule of thumb" or general idea.
Thanks all for their work though!
Regards from
Tom
Hi
Ahh, i've not seen you make many tpyos before but it had to happen one day. Glad to see you have joined the rest of us so thoroughly :))
Regards from
Tom