Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 114

Thread: XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,613

    Default XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

    Phoronix: XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

    In the past few days I delivered X.Org vs. XMir Ubuntu Unity benchmarks on Intel hardware and Nouveau / NVIDIA. The benchmarking also found that 2D was also slower with XMir than simply running an X.Org Server. Benchmarks now carried out of X.Org vs. XWayland show that the Wayland-based equivalent is generally faster, at least for 2D operations...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM5OTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    85

    Default fanboys will be fanboys

    One could also speculate that wayland is significantly worse from the fact that he couldn't run anything that requires 3D and that for other tests weston broke with segfaults. Making such conclusions about which display server is superior on the basis of couple of tests is stupid and irresponsible.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    XMir has 1-2 missing features that caused performance problems and this has been known since Michael published his results. Doesn't mean Wayland is going to be better.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    XMir has 1-2 missing features that caused performance problems and this has been known since Michael published his results. Doesn't mean Wayland is going to be better.
    No, Wayland is going to be better because it's developed by people who know what they're doing, instead of simply copying stuff from people who know what they're doing...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No, Wayland is going to be better because it's developed by people who know what they're doing, instead of simply copying stuff from people who know what they're doing...
    Sorry but that doesn't stick.
    If I have fast code in one folder and copies it to a different folder the copy won't be slower.

    The facts is:
    Mir is missing some important pieces for performance right now.
    XMir emulated a full desktop environment while XWayland only emulated the benchmarked app.
    The test where run on different hardware.

    A. These test arent comparable at all as they where run in very different way measuring different stuff.
    B It's stupid to measure Mir perfomance right now except for seeing how different changes affect the performance.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    Sorry but that doesn't stick.
    If I have fast code in one folder and copies it to a different folder the copy won't be slower.

    The facts is:
    Mir is missing some important pieces for performance right now.
    XMir emulated a full desktop environment while XWayland only emulated the benchmarked app.
    The test where run on different hardware.

    A. These test arent comparable at all as they where run in very different way measuring different stuff.
    B It's stupid to measure Mir perfomance right now except for seeing how different changes affect the performance.
    Better and faster are two different things.
    Sometimes faster comes with crashes, and stable implies slower. How would you define 'better' there? The faster, or the more reliable? Depends on your priorities and the specific use case. It's not the same if a video keeps crashing (it really breaks the atmosphere a movie might be trying to set) but the time it works can put 600FPS on screen, than a web browser which is stable as hell but takes a minute to load each message on an IRC window. Both cases are shitty as hell, even when in one aspect are DA BEST.

    On the other hand, what is compared is what will be relevant for the user. The comparison itself is bad for said reasons, but that doesn't change a bit what the end user will perceive. XMir will be running the desktops in 13.10 and 14.04, which is a LTS. IMO, this is nonsense. On Wayland, there's no plans of releasing a distro with it until there's a working native DE on it, and XWayland is, in consequence, meant only for unsupported *single* applications, and this is what Wayland users will see.

    I agree on the point that it's stupid to compare performance right now, though.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    Sorry but that doesn't stick.
    If I have fast code in one folder and copies it to a different folder the copy won't be slower.

    The facts is:
    Mir is missing some important pieces for performance right now.
    XMir emulated a full desktop environment while XWayland only emulated the benchmarked app.
    The test where run on different hardware.

    A. These test arent comparable at all as they where run in very different way measuring different stuff.
    B It's stupid to measure Mir perfomance right now except for seeing how different changes affect the performance.
    What mrugiero said, and also: you can't just complain that "it's unfair to Mir because it's still missing pieces", because... how does the same not also apply to Wayland? Wayland is also still missing some pieces (when it comes to DE and distro implementation, mostly).

    But anyway, I'm confident that in due time, Wayland will wipe the floor with Mir.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    156

    Default Everyone predicted the results!

    Well, this is not a surprise!

    The benchmarks are done in Weston, which is Wayland native. Only the apps use XWayland.

    Wayland Programmers predicted these results: X Apps on a Wayland environment will be the about the same or faster than on a full X environment. (because it's like they are fullscreen: the X server does less calculus)


    The XMir benchmarks were done with a full X emulation via XMir: Unity 7 ran under XMir (not Mir native), so apps running under it are not fullscreen: can only be lower performance.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mannerov View Post
    Well, this is not a surprise!

    The benchmarks are done in Weston, which is Wayland native. Only the apps use XWayland.

    Wayland Programmers predicted these results: X Apps on a Wayland environment will be the about the same or faster than on a full X environment. (because it's like they are fullscreen: the X server does less calculus)


    The XMir benchmarks were done with a full X emulation via XMir: Unity 7 ran under XMir (not Mir native), so apps running under it are not fullscreen: can only be lower performance.
    And you know why?
    Because XWayland was developed having in mind to run X legacy apps inside a Wayland world. It was not developed to runs an entire desktop environment on top of it.
    But Canonical needs testing for their Mir, so they will force every ubuntu users to become a tester.
    That is the difference: people that know what to do (Wayland devs) and a bunch of beginners (Mir devs).
    You are right, taking that into consideration, these (and future) results are predictable.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Keep in mind that as far as I can tell xmir and xwayland are somewhat different.

    xmir seems to me like its a fullscreen x server, that runs a full x session, including a full X window manager like compiz, that is forwarded to display on a mir server, and doesn't seem integrated.

    xwayland on the other hand is ROOTLESS, in which x programs run, and Weston has its own miniature window manager that integrates the X apps with the wayland apps.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •