Skip to content

cold page load, OS X 10.7, and talos

I’ve been looking at some Talos pageload benchmark data lately. The intention is gleaning enough information to decide whether having a separate cold page load benchmark is worthwhile. Our Talos pageload benchmark loads a number of sites a specified number of times (currently 25), records times for all of those, discards the highest time per page (usually the first page load), and averages everything else.  The working hypothesis is that the 1st and/or 2nd iteration of each site load might be worth tracking separately.

To that end, I’ve been writing a lot of shell scripts to munge benchmark numbers, running those numbers through gnuplot, and staring at the output. One of the graph styles I’ve been using is the Q-Q plot, which I use for comparing data like so:

  1. Sort the page load times for the 1st iteration;
  2. Sort the page load times for the nth iteration (usually 2nd, 5th, or 10th, the exact number doesn’t seem to matter a great deal);
  3. Plot numbers from step 1 vs. numbers from step 2 and eyeball the graph.

There’s a fair amount of data to crunch (8000 runs times 100 sites times 25 runs divided across 8 operating systems), but the most interesting thing to come out of this experiment so far is consistently slower cold page loads on OS X 10.7 on certain sites.  Graphing most sites across OS X 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8, the graphs look like this:

Q-Q plot for stackoverflow.com

Q-Q plot for reuters.com

These sorts of graphs are exactly what you’d want to see across OS versions: improving load times along warm page load, cold page load, or both.

Before pointing out the sites, it’s worth noting that the pages used in the benchmark are representative of these sites as they appeared ~1 year ago: things may have changed and the pages may have been altered slightly to avoid fetching resources off the network, etc.  The sites are:

  • 56.com
  • alibaba.com
  • bild.de
  • cnet.com
  • deviantart.com
  • etsy.com
  • en.wikipedia.org
  • filestube.com
  • foxnews.com
  • guardian.co.uk
  • huffingtonpost.com
  • hatena.ne.jp
  • icanhascheezburger.com
  • linkedin.com
  • mashable.com
  • mail.ru
  • nicovideo.jp
  • noimpactman.typepad.com
  • orange.fr
  • spiegel.de
  • thepiratebay.org
  • wsj.com
  • whois.domaintools.com

I’ll show a few representative graphs here; you can examine graphs for all the sites in the benchmark if you wish.

Q-Q plot for spiegel.de

Q-Q plot for orange.fr

Q-Q plot for huffingtonpost.com

Q-Q plot for linkedin.com

Q-Q plot for thepiratebay.org

What’s so interesting about these graphs is that the maximum cold page load time for OS X 10.6 and 10.8 is barely the minimum cold page load time for OS X 10.7.  The warm page load times are similar, too.

mozilla.com doesn’t appear in the above list, but is notable for exhibiting significantly worse cold load performance on OS 10.8:

Q-Q plot for mozilla.com

I’m probably not going to dive any deeper on this issue right now; instead, this discrepancy will get filed away under “interesting things that turn up when you look at cold load performance specifically”.  Once I reach some sort of conclusion on whether benchmarking cold page load separately is worthwhile, then I’ll come back to the interesting issues found along the way.  If anybody has any theories about why these pages exhibit this discrepancy, I’d love to hear them!

2 Comments

  1. Took me a while to understand the graphs. Each dot is a specific website where y is warm speed and x is cold. Did I get that right?

    I wonder if a-team changed how they image machines or if it really is a difference in firefox perf. Wonder if we can get a similar picture through necko telemetry.

    Posted on 20-Apr-13 at 3:31 am | Permalink
  2. Nathan Froyd

    Yes, you interpreted the graphs correctly.

    Posted on 20-Apr-13 at 6:00 am | Permalink