Closed Bug 372152 Opened 18 years ago Closed 18 years ago

Look into shortening session-saving batch time

Categories

(Camino Graveyard :: General, defect)

x86
macOS
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: stuart.morgan+bugzilla, Assigned: stuart.morgan+bugzilla)

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.8.1.4)

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

There seems to be a perception that we are losing pages with session saving. It's not clear how much of thaa is just people doing artificial tests where they intentionally crash/force-quit right after launching and opening a bunch of pages, but even if it is we may run into bad press. I'll run perf numbers and see how much a shorter batch time would cost.
The worst number I saw on my MBP was 0.07 seconds, and it was usually around 0.003, so the main things we get out of batching are not killing people when they open a tab group and giving the pages a little bit of time to settle down to reduce capturing crash loops.
Attached patch shorten to 5 seconds (obsolete) — Splinter Review
5 seconds will give a much smaller window to lose pages, but still be plenty spaced to avoid hurting perf.
Attachment #257396 - Flags: superreview?(mikepinkerton)
Attachment #257396 - Flags: review+
Attachment #257396 - Flags: superreview?(mikepinkerton) → superreview?(joshmoz)
Comment on attachment 257396 [details] [diff] [review] shorten to 5 seconds Going from 60 to 5 is pretty steep. Assuming there was some point to having such a high number in the first place, is such a huge change really necessary? What about going to 1/6 instead of 1/12, 10, and seeing how that goes? I guess what I'm getting at is why was the number so high in the first place, and how does reasoning that fit into your decision to move down to 5 instead of 10, 20, or 30 and checking out the reaction to that?
There wasn't a point to 60; I picked it without having done performance testing. Now that I have tested, I know that once every 5 seconds won't be a problem.
Attached patch 10 secondsSplinter Review
I'm not particularly attached to 5 though, so lets try 10.
Attachment #257396 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #258674 - Flags: superreview?(joshmoz)
Attachment #257396 - Flags: superreview?(joshmoz)
Comment on attachment 258674 [details] [diff] [review] 10 seconds I'm not particularly opposed to 5 either, just cautious about such a big change and looking for more of an explanation. Lets go with 10 for now and drop it down later if we think it is necessary.
Attachment #258674 - Flags: superreview?(joshmoz) → superreview+
Landed on trunk and MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Keywords: fixed1.8.1.4
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: