Page MenuHome

2.90 takes twice as much to start up as 2.83
Needs Developer to Reproduce, NormalPublic

Description

System Information
Operating system: Linux-4.9.0-12-amd64-x86_64-with-debian-9.12 64 Bits
Graphics card: Gallium 0.4 on AMD KAVERI (DRM 2.49.0 / 4.9.0-12-amd64, LLVM 3.9.1) X.Org 4.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 13.0.6

Blender Version
Broken: version: 2.90.0 Alpha, branch: master, commit date: 2020-06-25 21:53, hash: rB62aa103d485f
Worked: 2.83

Short description of error
Blender 2.90 takes twice as long to start as 2.83

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
On my computer 2.90 takes 12 seconds to start and 2.83 takes 6 seconds.

Event Timeline

Ankit (ankitm) renamed this task from 2.90 slow start to 2.90 takes twice as much to start up as 2.83.Fri, Jun 26, 1:20 PM
Ankit (ankitm) added a subscriber: Ankit (ankitm).

Do both of them have same start up blend file ?

Do both of them have same start up blend file ?

The startup time difference remain with the default startup files and with the same startup file.

Richard Antalik (ISS) changed the task status from Needs Triage to Needs Information from User.EditedMon, Jun 29, 6:24 PM

@Alex (mklex):
Do you use HDD or SSD? 2.90 includes symbol database(~70MB) to create stack traces on windows OS.

With SSD it is quite hard to measure start time properly, both took about 2s to load.

I'm using HDD. Blender always has been very frugal with computer resources so even ordinary people on not so new machines could use it comfortably. I hope it will keep it that way.
I'm on Linux. Blender directory with 2.83 executable stats: 5288 files, totalling 510.3 MB
Blender directory with 2.90 executable stats: 5436 items, totalling 533.3 MB
So not much difference.

See the "flame graph" section in https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/User:Jbakker/projects/FasterAnimationPlayback/Spring_Scene_Analysis#Metrics
Is it possible for you to collect such a profile data and share it ?

Richard Antalik (ISS) changed the task status from Needs Information from User to Needs Developer to Reproduce.Tue, Jun 30, 11:49 PM

It would definitely help us and you as well to try to find the source of problem. I don't remember 6s long load times even when I used HDD, though this was on windows and my memory may not be accurate.

Can you try some other drive, for example flash disk or SD card?