On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:12 AM Steve Fink wrote:
> Yes, sorry, a couple of people pointed that out to me privately. And I
> did get that mixed up; I was assuming processors, despite the page
> specifically pointing out "physical cores".
>
> I still think there's something to be kept in mind her
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
> Yes, sorry, a couple of people pointed that out to me privately. And I did
> get that mixed up; I was assuming processors, despite the page specifically
> pointing out "physical cores".
>
> I still think there's something to be kept in mind he
What is the point you're trying to drive home?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 15:58 Steve Fink wrote:
> Just to drive home a point, let's play a game.
>
> First, guesstimate what percentage of our users have systems with 2 or
> fewer cores.
>
> Then visit https://hardware.metrics.mozilla.com/#goto-cpu-an
fbertsch helpfully wrote a query that breaks down physical cores into the %
with and without HT enabled:
https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/queries/47219/source
>From this we can see that, e.g., 6.7% of systems that report "2 logical
cores" (and ~2% of all systems) actually only have 1 physical co
Yes, sorry, a couple of people pointed that out to me privately. And I
did get that mixed up; I was assuming processors, despite the page
specifically pointing out "physical cores".
I still think there's something to be kept in mind here, though. Even
with 4 processors (2 hyperthreaded cores o
I don't believe these counts take into account the number of usage hours
of each client, so people with 4+ cores may actually account for a
larger amount of relative Firefox usage than their absolute numbers
would suggest.
I am sure some people on the data / analyst / product side of Firefox
That page says "physical cores", so its not taking into account hyper
threading, right? So even a high end macbook pro falls in that category?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
> Thanks for drawing attention to this, sfink.
>
> This is likely to become more important as we con
Are these actual "physical cores", or is this "hardware threads"?
There's very big difference between 2 and 2+HT these days.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
> Thanks for drawing attention to this, sfink.
>
> This is likely to become more important as we continue to scale up ou
On 3/27/2018 5:02 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
Thanks for drawing attention to this, sfink.
This is likely to become more important as we continue to scale up our
parallelization with content processes and threads.
How do these counts classify SMT systems (aka Hyperthreading)? Would 4
core * 2-way
Just noting that there's bug 1399962 right now -- and if you're single core
(like a large portion of very affordable PCs in the past two years or so),
the problem can be so bad (bug 1431835) that common sites like amazon can
turn Firefox into a not viable option.
--
David Durst [:ddurst]
On Tue,
Thanks for drawing attention to this, sfink.
This is likely to become more important as we continue to scale up our
parallelization with content processes and threads.
On 21 March 2018 at 14:54, Steve Fink wrote:
> Just to drive home a point, let's play a game.
>
> First, guesstimate what perce
Just to drive home a point, let's play a game.
First, guesstimate what percentage of our users have systems with 2 or
fewer cores.
Then visit https://hardware.metrics.mozilla.com/#goto-cpu-and-memory to
check your guess.
(I didn't say it was a *fun* game.)
12 matches
Mail list logo
