I'm trying to figure out why my application performs very bad. So I did a performance record within DevTools and I can see that frames usually takes about 150 ms which is too long.
However I don't understand why the frame takes so much time. There is some javascript handling an input event, some DOM manipulation and some paint. It all takes about 60 ms. So why is the frame 150 ms long?
EDIT
I've enabled some timeline-related devtools experiments as wOxxOm suggested. There is some kind of Update Layer task.
I would have said it came from too much nodes in your layer, but with some research we can now find that someone already had your problem before. To quote the answerer :
In your case, I would guess that you are triggering a fundamental
layer invalidation that is forcing it to update a layer high up on the
tree hierarchy which is then trickling down the tree and causing each
of those layers to be updated. Although its hard to say without
looking at your code.
Either way if this long Update Layer Tree is consistently happening
before the Layout is being recalculated, it's most certainly related
to that.
I'll advise checking the ressource pointed by Alexander J. Ray, especially the HTML5 Rocks article.
Related
Ok so I'm a bit confused about Ressources.Load. I actually use it quite a lot and everyone seems to see this feature as pure evilness. In this documentation, it's even written "Don't use it". I searched a lot about this and found this post. It mostly says to use Ressources.Load only for rare assets, otherwise, performance could/will be harmed.
I can see why this could be a "bad" thing to use, but honestly, I don't know how not to use this in my situation.
Lets say I have a game with ~10 different races with couples of units per race. The user chose it's race and start the game. At this point, it seems normal to me to Ressource.Load only the assets related to this specific race, and not the other ones...
Also, let's say you have a combat scene, with many possible environments (ie: winter, forest, desert, etc.). Again, I wouldn't want to load anything else than the one I'm fighting on. So using Ressources.Load seems the perfect tool. No? Am I missing something important about Unity or what?
Thanks a lot
It's true that Unity loads everything it see that is connected to things in the inspector in the scene. You have no way to stop Unity's loading once you are in the scene. (You can unload later, but it already took the toll of loading them all) The performance harmed in Unity's term seems to mean while playing, because if you connect them to the scene it loads everything from start and plays smooth from then but if you do a dynamic load you risk in lagging while playing.
Don't use it.
This strong recommendation is made for several reasons:
Use of the Resources folder makes fine-grained memory management more
difficult.
It's difficult but not impossible. If you are careful on your own, then you can reap the reward that is lower memory consumption.
Improper use of Resources folders will increase application
startup time and the length of builds. As the number of Resources
folders increases, management of the Assets within those folders
becomes very difficult.
It can't be help because offsetting with the load time you can save at scene start, the increased startup time is probably worth it. Most player won't mind the startup time in my opinion.
The Resources system degrades a project's
ability to deliver custom content to specific platforms and eliminates
the possibility of incremental content upgrades. AssetBundle Variants
are Unity's primary tool for adjusting content on a per-device basis.
Then you only put things that works universally in the Resources folder.
A modern alternate way is to compose your game in scene and use LoadSceneMode.Additive to get what you want one by one. It is suitable for big chunks like combat scene, but for lazy loading of something small in concept (but potentially contains large data like textures) like characters I would still use Resources.Load. The only thing that has delayed load build in is AudioClip which you can deselect preload audio data.
I wrote a detailed load process and its memory consumption here if you are interested in reading.
https://gametorrahod.com/unity-texture-memory-loading-unloading-7054819e4ae8
I've been doing some refactoring on a slow running web application, and managed to reduce the number of requests and the size of the downloads to help improve the situation. Now the loading time is consistently shorter. However, consistently before there was hardly any time elapsed before the last 2 requests. Now consistently there is a gap.
Q1: What do these 'gaps' indicate in Chrome Network view?
Q2: Looking at the screenshots, the DOMContentLoaded time vs. the overall Finish time, are there any conclusions I can draw that could help me optimise further?
Record the page load in the Performance panel. See Get Started With Analyzing Runtime Performance to get the gist of how to use the panel. Understanding the network bottleneck can also help get you oriented.
However, you'll want to press the Reload page button (like Sam does in the "understanding the network bottleneck" video) instead of the Record button to record the page load performance, as the "get started with analyzing runtime performance" instructs you to do.
Once you've got a recording, the Main section shows you all of the main thread activity that occurs while the page is loading. The Network section shows you all of the Network requests. You'll probably be able to visually verify that there's a bunch of JavaScript work going on during the gap that you're seeing in your screenshots.
If it's still not clear to you, post a screenshot of your Performance panel recording and I'll help you decode the results.
One of our web pages has a rendering performance issue, when the page is open, the spinner is freeze or loading very laggy, and after 6-12 seconds the page completes loading. So i'm using the Network's waterfall in chrome dev tool to diagnose the issue. But I got a few scenarios which i don't understand what happened.
In the following screenshots, all the resources for the corresponding page are loaded in a very short time, but the spinner is freeze for 6 seconds or 9 seconds, i'm not sure what is happening after the resources are loaded and before the page completes loading, maybe the spinner is in a wrong thread or gets blocked somehow? What is the means that i should use to find out the cause?
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
UPDATE
Network Screenshot
Timeline Screenshot
UPDATE
After checking the Event Log, i think the issue happens at Angular digest cycle, that endpoint response time should still be 780ms.
Thanks for the detailed info. It'd be more helpful if you can link to the page, but I understand that's often not possible. I'll just provide some general data for people in the same boat. I don't know if I'll be able to completely answer this specific question, though.
In the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 screenshots you can see that your resources are loading in 1 or 2 seconds. That's your cue that the issue isn't related to the Network.
So while this is a page load issue, it has nothing to do with the network.
In Timeline Screenshot you can see that your CPU usage is completely maxed out from about 1900ms to beyond 16000ms. So your page is forcing the browser to do a tremendous amount of work. This is probably in the JavaScript.
To diagnose this, I'd investigate the flame chart (under Main) which you can see in Timeline Screenshot. The longer the bar, the longer that function is taking to complete. Or, if you see a small function getting called thousands of times, that could be the cause. If you can optimize those calls, then you can get your page visually loaded faster. You can click Self Time header in the UPDATE screenshot to rank the function calls according to which took the most time.
Again, I don't know how helpful this answer is for this particular question, but I thought I'd try to rephrase the problem in a different, more general way.
we're attempting to track a streaming video with SiteCatalyst.The issue comes in as this video has obsviously no end and the s.media Module can't know how to set the seconds or milestones segment views.This is resulting in no tracking calls except for the starting one.Could a possible solution be the usage of s.media.monitor custom functions?Here's explained how to use them together with the basic Media module settings.Maybe a timing deployment of "sendRequest()" method could help...?I use this occasion to ask a brief how-to example of media.monitor methods, because I've been just using the basic settings till now, as below:
s.loadModule("Media");
s.Media.autoTrack = false;
s.Media.trackMilestones = "25,50";
s.Media.segmentByMilestones = true;... ...Thanks a lot
Yeah.. i really, really dislike the Media module. Video tracking is getting more and more popular with the clients, so it has become the biggest thorn in my side, because the nature of videos over the internet is a big mess with all kinds of moving parts internally, that make it extremely difficult to get truly accurate tracking beyond basic "start" and "stop". (actually I take that back.. I think mobile/sdk tracking is quickly becoming the thing i shake my angry fist at the most, but that's a different post!)
I think Adobe has made some heroic efforts to automate video tracking and it more or less works okay if you just have a regular (not flash) object or html5 tag embedded on the page but in practice, MOST of the time, sites implement their videos through 3rd party scripts (e.g. jwplayer, vimeo, youtube api) and the Media module automation basically goes down the drain on that count.
I understand that it needs to know how long a video is to know when to autopop the events, but I swear, 99% of the time in practice, the way Media module expects things to pop in certain orders etc.. it just doesn't align with how videos work in the real world. Even if you attempt to do it the "manual" way, more often than not it's still buggy,e.g. autoplay and buffering ALWAYS seem to screw up the open+play sequence that MUST happen in that order.
Basically, the Media module desperately needs to be rewritten to better handle streaming videos, and also just "manually" using it in general. Anyways..
Two things I have done in your situation. Overall, neither one of these options are a perfect 1:1 to normal videos with a duration, but then, streaming videos aren't really the same, so it doesn't really make sense to treat them the same.
Option #1: Use an estimated duration for your streaming video. So you said it yourself: your streaming videos have no end. Well as I mentioned, you can't calculate percent viewed unless you have a duration, pretty basic math. So, estimate a duration.
I have clients that have streaming webinars or whatever and it's true that there's technically no duration according to the player, but in reality they don't really conduct that webinar 24/7 forever. In reality it's for a set amount of time like 30 minutes or an hour or something. So, just specify the duration as that.
Yes, this will require extra custom work on your end to store/associate an estimated duration. And yes, this does have the potential for being misleading (e.g. if a webinar ends early or runs late). This option is generally good for sites that have set windows for the stream to actually be active.
Option #2: Ditch the notion of % viewed, record it as n time consumed. So the overall point of the milestones is to know how much of a video was actually watched, yes? Well, who said it has to be measured by % viewed?
How about instead, you just record n seconds consumed every n seconds. You can do this with an incrementor eVar, and/or counter event. (Part of the normal video tracking actually does include a counter event "Video Time", or a.media.timePlayed).
So basically, you'd basically just pop the events/props/eVars yourself, and ignore milestone/segment reports.
Note: This option only really works if you are using the older style video tracking that has events/props/eVars assigned for it. If you are using the newer style video tracking that does not use events/props/eVars.. well, AA does not currently offer an official way to manually pop that stuff directly. It is surely possible to unofficially do so, but I have not yet reverse engineered the latest Media module to figure out how to do that. So, in this case your only option is #1.
I've just started playing around with opengl es on the iphone the past couple of weeks and i'm looking at refactoring some of my code to use Vertex Buffer Objects(VBO). Before I do though I would like to make sure it'll be worth it. The problem is that afaik the only reason you create VBO's is to shift a chunk of data onto the graphics card so that it doesn't need to be retrieved from system ram when it's used. The iPhone however does not have any dedicated ram that I'm aware of so i'm struggling to see why I would benefit at all from using VBO's. I have seen talk around the internet with conflicting opinions and apple certainly want dev's to use it so there's probably still a reason to use them but just wanted to see if anyone on SO had an opinion to add.
I saw no performance improvement on an iPhone 3G. I moved a bunch of stuff to VBOs, but eventually backed it out as it made it more difficult for me to pursue other performance gains. It's not the quick 25% performance increase that I was hoping for.
I've read somewhere that it can make a difference on the newer hardware (3GS), but I don't have references to back that up.
It depends. (sorry).
Rob didn't see an improvement for his setup, but here is an interesting post that did see a large improvement.
The main reason to existence of VBO's is the presence of static data on 3D models. The first bottleneck you encounter is the slowness of copying data to video memory (by using the unavailable glBegin/glEnd block or glVertexPointer, glBufferData and friends).
Let's imagine the old "flying toaster" screensaver. All toasts are static (changing only the position) - why waste resources copying them every frame from CPU's memory to GPU's? Copy it once with buffers and draw it with a single command. And, depending on how you do animations, even the animated toasters can be described in a static fashion.
My first 2D game I started without VBOs. When I changed to VBOs, no difference (like Rob). But, when I refactored to use more static buffers, FPS gone from 20 to 40. Since my goal was to reach 30, I was satisfied. I had some ideas to refactor even more, leaving everything static, but I don't have time now (game is on review, next one to come).