Last Comment Bug 648793 - Test results for Download Statusbar on OS X are unrealistically low
: Test results for Download Statusbar on OS X are unrealistically low
Product: Testing
Classification: Components
Component: Talos (show other bugs)
: unspecified
: x86 Mac OS X
-- normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it
Depends on:
Blocks: 599169 AddonSlowStartup
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2011-04-09 16:30 PDT by Wladimir Palant
Modified: 2012-04-09 00:05 PDT (History)
8 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---


Description User image Wladimir Palant 2011-04-09 16:30:38 PDT
Talos tests show that Download Statusbar adds 80-100ms to the Firefox startup time on Windows and Linux. Yet on Mac OS X it is supposed to be only 10ms. This is both in the March 26th test run and April 2nd, for the latter the result was still a 10ms increase if you ignore the two outliers. This extension has no OS X specific code path or anything like that, it isn't a fluke either (same result in two test runs). However, this result cannot be correct, Download Statusbar is probably being tested in a non-functional state on OS X.
Comment 1 User image Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] 2011-04-11 14:55:10 PDT
I think this is INVALID. My previous tests on Mac OS produced an overhead of around 4% (average 18ms delta, tested on beta 10), and I just performed the same tests and the result was around 6% (30ms average delta, tested on 4.0). I have confirmed the add-on was properly installed and it is fully functional.
Comment 2 User image Wladimir Palant 2011-04-12 01:22:39 PDT
If that's INVALID then we have a Firefox bug on non-Mac operating systems. All the more reason to investigate what exactly is causing overhead on Windows/Linux and why the same overhead isn't present on OS X. As I said, this extension behaves exactly the same regardless of operating system. My own tests with Download Statusbar on Windows 7 confirmed that its measured Windows overhead is realistic. I got somewhat lower numbers but that's probably due to bug 647954 and bug 648732 (I had both fixed locally).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.