Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix performance regressions #119

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Feb 13, 2015
Merged

Fix performance regressions #119

merged 15 commits into from
Feb 13, 2015

Conversation

CendioOssman
Copy link
Member

Fix some performance regressions that were introduced when we cleaned up the codecs. Fixes #63.

@dcommander
Copy link
Contributor

encperf:

For the 24-bit datasets, encperf generates similar results to my hacked-up compare-encodings benchmark, but on the 16-bit and 8-bit datasets, the raw equivalent byte count appears to be off (I'll generate a new issue for that.) I've generated PR #124 to add the display of the encoded byte count and raw-equivalent byte count to encperf's output (I need this data, because I often want to compute compression ratios for groups of datasets.)

decperf:

Everything LGTM. Performance numbers match the decoding numbers from my custom benchmark code.

@dcommander
Copy link
Contributor

Actually, I now see what the issue is with the raw-equivalent bytes. The computation of them is using the client-side pixel format instead of the server-side pixel format, and the client-side pixel format in encperf is always 32-bit. compare-encodings behaves differently. It will use the same pixel format for client and server unless you are generating a session capture, in which case it will always convert to 24-bit. I would propose that encperf behave similarly, or at least that an option be added to it so that it can use the same server & client pixel format, even if that behavior isn't the default.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Severe performance regression in TigerVNC 1.4 relative to 1.2 and 1.3
2 participants