Partager via

We have beaten our Whidbey Beta 1 performance goals!

  • Article

Whidbey Web Forms Editor team has beaten Whidbey Beta 1 performance goals!

Test Machine: PIII600/128MB, W2K Pro FAT32

Scenario (Unit) 40512 Beta1 Goal Diff Beta1 Bound By
Add a new web form (cold) (s) 11.01 18.00 39% I/O 
Cold F5 (PortalVBSDK) (s) 256MB 35.62 60.00 41% I/O 
Open DeskTopDefault.aspx (cold) (s) 10.67 20.00 47% I/O 
Load Web Site (Cold) (s) 4.71 10.00 53% I/O 
Warm F5 (s) 256MB 2.29 5.00 54% CPU 
Devenv ShoppingCart.aspx - cold (s) 15.22 41.00 63% I/O 
Devenv ShoppingCart.aspx - warm (s) 5.98 16.00 63% I/O 

Many people contributed to the result, especially our performance guru Ibrahim (who does not have a blog - yet). We hope you (our customers) will like the product performancel. We are glad that we are now “officially“ beating expectations since according to the official VS Performance team measurements we have been slow all along (see the following chart, X axis is build number)

We could not explain why our local team measurements were much better than the official VS results despite using machine with the same CPU type and speed, same amount of RAM, disk drive with the same RPM, etc. Our team implemented tons of performance improvements and yet could not get official number to move! We finally figured out that we have been testing on NTFS while VS performance team had been using FAT32!  On top of that we had a bug in the file time comparison that only manifested itself up on FAT32. The bug caused excessive regeneration of validation schemas which was killing our startup performance numbers.

Now on to Beta 2 goals... ;-) New scenarios, new challenges...

Comments

  • Anonymous
    May 18, 2004
    So what you're saying is that Whidbey is slow unless you drop all security and use FAT32. Good job once again...
  • Anonymous
    May 18, 2004
    The bug was when you used Fat32 instead of NTFS. It has been fixed now, which was why numbers shot up.
  • Anonymous
    May 18, 2004
    Mikhail,

    Congrats on good results. A lot of people are counting on you :)

    You might want to put a "scroller" div around your image -- it breaks the template:

    [div style="overflow:auto;width:540px"][perf.jpg image goes here][/div]
  • Anonymous
    May 19, 2004
    Fixed, thanks.
  • Anonymous
    May 19, 2004
    Since you're obviously working on VS.NET maybe you can tell me why all the UI widgets totally fail to show XP styling. Even when I host IE and render some HTML the scrollbars (for example) are flat Win95 style. From this fact I guess that it has something to do with message handling. Does Whidbey address this?
  • Anonymous
    May 19, 2004
    Slow IO on Cold runs could be probably made better with a background application hdd access pattern monitoring and file re-arranging. Oh and buy me a Raptor.
  • Anonymous
    May 19, 2004
    We do use tools that monitor HDD activity and paging and rearrange application pages accordingly. However, perf measurement is done on raw retail build, without paging optimization.
  • Anonymous
    May 31, 2004
    For Peter Wone - Have a look at this:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/browser/hosting/reference/enum/dochostuiflag.asp

    And look at DOCHOSTUIFLAG_THEME - this is how you have theming for when you host mshtml.

    Oh Mikhail - glad to see you finally joining the world of blogging. Thanks for the link :)
  • Anonymous
    May 19, 2005
    About a year ago, right before Beta 1 release, I blogged about Visual Web Developer performance numbers...