Closed Bug 634097 Opened 14 years ago Closed 8 years ago

Compare beta 10 hardware acceleration usage to beta 11 hardware acceleration usage

Categories

(Socorro :: Data request, task)

Product:
Socorro
Component:
Data request
Platform:
x86
macOS
Type:
task
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: joe, Unassigned)

Details

We've got some complaints about beta 11 being slower than beta 10, and from the graphics POV, this might be because we're now being much more aggressive about blocking old drivers. To see whether this actually resulted in us having significantly fewer users of hardware acceleration, we'd like to check what proportion of our Windows Vista & 7 users are running with D2D in beta 11, and compare that to Beta 10.
I'm not sure to how to get at the ratio's, but its easy to get counts of number of crash reports that have various combos of OS Ver Adapter and Driver Info, or some buckets of those for beta 11 and b10. top combos of these for b11 are shown below. counts on the left 643 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.2202 444 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a02, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 339 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 29c2, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 306 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 0046, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.2202 251 6.1.7600 \N 178 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 29c2, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1749 171 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 27ae, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 166 6.0.6002 Service Pack 2 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.2202 158 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: a011, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.14.10.2117 156 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2772, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 152 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 27a2, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 ... and for beta 10 the counts look like this. (we don't have driver info as accessble there.) 383 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.2202 289 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1749 280 6.1.7600 \N 274 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 29c2, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 267 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a02, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 249 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 0046, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.2202 161 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 1002, AdapterDeviceID: 68b8, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.801.0.0 139 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1892 131 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 1002, AdapterDeviceID: 9612, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.632.1.2000 130 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2772, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 130 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 1002, AdapterDeviceID: 95c4, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.632.1.2000 129 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 27ae, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 128 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0e22, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.6658 125 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 27a2, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1930 122 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0640, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.5896 119 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0640, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.6099 113 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0622, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.6099 110 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1808 110 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 29c2, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1749 107 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0640, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.11.8593 99 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a02, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1749 97 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.1883 95 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a42, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.15.10.2086 92 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: a011, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.14.10.2117 89 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0622, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.5896 87 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0e22, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.6099 87 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 1002, AdapterDeviceID: 9442, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.801.0.0 81 6.1.7600 AdapterVendorID: 10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0641, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.12.5896 80 6.0.6002 Service Pack 2 AdapterVendorID: 8086, AdapterDeviceID: 2a02, AdapterDriverVersion: 7.14.10.1437 I guess we could also look at the list of drivers we are blocking and see how they related to crash volume in b10 and b11.
counts above are shown for b11 on feb 13, and b10 on jan 31 when each of the relases had about the same number active daily users (between 1.4 and 1.6 million)
The important figure here is how many users have the d2d1.dll module loaded into their address space. This is the only way we know if Direct2D is actually enabled for a user.
ok, I've got an idea to try. I'll get a sample of 1000 reports for 4.0b10 on jan31 and look for d2d1.dll in the module list, then do the same for 4.0b11 on feb 13. then we can use that as rough estimates of d2d enabled v. not present at time of crash.
The full 1000 report sample hasn't finished up but in a preliminary look it appears that about 25% of all crash reports on 4.0b10 had d2d1.dll in the process list, and about 8% of 4.0b11 show d2d1.dll running. In this first run just taken a sample across all os versions, but it sounds like I should tighten up the sample to just include: Firefox 4.0b10 && windows_vista (6.0) && windows_7 (6.1) Firefox 4.0b11 && windows_vista (6.0) && windows_7 (6.1)
ok, the first run of 1000 reports with the only restriction being firefox version has completed. with 88 reports containing d2d1.dll on 4.0b11 and 255 reports in the sample from 4.0b10 d2d1-reports-for-40b11.txt 1000 88 0.088 d2d1-reports-for-40b10.txt 1000 255 0.255
If restrict the sample of 1000 reports to only include windows versions 6.[01] the numbers look like this: d2d1-win6-reports-for-40b10 1000 606 0.606 d2d1-win6-reports-for-40b11 1000 266 0.266
chofmann: do you have all the data you need? Do you need anything from PG/HBase?
I took samples of b8 and b9 a few days after there release when they had about 1.4 million active daily users. Here is what those numbers look like: ratio where d2d1.dll found d2d1-win6-reports-for-40b8 jan12 1000 433 0.433 d2d1-win6-reports-for-40b9 jan21 1000 456 0.456 d2d1-win6-reports-for-40b10 jan31 1000 606 0.606 d2d1-win6-reports-for-40b11 feb13 1000 266 0.266
Component: Socorro → General
Product: Webtools → Socorro
Is this data request still relevant, i.e. does it still need to be done? If not, can you close the bug? Thanks.
Component: General → Data request
QA Contact: socorro → data-request
I'm closing this out per comment #10.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.