6 ms·
>I bet smaller memory use and snappiness correlate You bet, but do you have any experience of any kind to back this up or is it just a vague hunch? In my anec
by ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>I bet smaller memory use and snappiness correlate
You bet, but do you have any experience of any kind to back this up or is it just a vague hunch?
In my anecdotal experience, the snappiness of a DE is given almost exclusively by the compositor and amount of CPU cycles and disk I/O ops used by the DE, and less about the RAM used. Of major importance is the input lag of the compositor, with Wayland feeling far more snappier than X11 in most cases.
So I wish more of these tests would investigate CPU usage and disk I/O, rather than these RAM tests where users come to the premature "oh look, DE_1 at idle uses 200MB less RAM than DE_2, so it must be faster" conclusion, which couldn't be more false in the real world usage scenarios of how human users perceive snappiness. There's much more to this than just idle RAM usage.
So to contradict you, no, idle RAM usage does not in any way always directly correlate to perceived DE snappiness.
- Lutger 4y agoWhy not try to measure snappiness directly? There's tons of research about this in UX land, which is not my field but I'm aware of it, defining precisely which kind of interactions at what latencies feel instantaneous and so an and so forth. There is a lot of focus on measuring the system in linux land (cpu, memory, io, etc) from the perspective of a user (and by users), but its actually often the least informative. Developers and operators often benefit more from this level of measurement. I suspect this is because its much easier to measure system utilization in a standardized way. Maybe this is a nice project to develop user friendly and standardized application level benchmarking for linux desktop (these are more readily available in web development).