Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 114

Thread: XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,782

    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
    86

    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
    2,132

    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
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    158

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    161

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,453

    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...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    808

    Default

    Mir's superiority and awesomeness is secured at the protocol level:
    ...with our protocol- and platform-agnostic approach, we can make sure that we reach our goal of a consistent and beautiful user experience across platforms and device form factors. Canonical(C)
    So no matter what any benchmarks show - Mir is better than Wayland, period.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchy View Post
    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.
    One could, sure, if one were a ubuntu fanboy in denial...

    Can't wait for bo$$ to troll this thread and call the entire world basement dwellers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    171

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    438

    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.
    Good point. What I don't understand is why Ubuntu isn't going straight to Unity on Mir? I was under the impression that it was running fine, so why bother with xmir? (No troll replies please)

Posting Permissions

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