LifeViewer load times

For discussion directly related to LifeWiki.
User avatar
unname4798
Posts: 2569
Joined: July 15th, 2023, 10:27 am
Location: Near ConwayLife servers

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by unname4798 »

b-engine wrote: February 7th, 2025, 11:53 pm Despite running Chrome 132 on Android 9, I still get LifeViewer Standard instead of Pro; whatever problem happened?
The Pro is in beta testing only.
User avatar
rowett
Moderator
Posts: 4596
Joined: January 31st, 2013, 2:34 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by rowett »

confocaloid wrote: February 7th, 2025, 11:46 pm On my laptop, the displayed page scan time varies around 3.4 to 4.4 seconds.
Thanks. Please try again (same link) but please hard refresh your browser to ensure you get build 1239. I've adjusted the memory usage to see if it helps.
confocaloid wrote: February 7th, 2025, 11:46 pm From my measurements, the real clock time appears to be roughly 4 to 7 seconds.
The page scan timing should be accurate. You're probably seeing additional time taken by the browser or the operating system.
confocaloid wrote: February 7th, 2025, 11:46 pm I tried clicking "Launch" on the viewer. Launching takes around 10 to 12 seconds.
Yes I've not optimized that yet. However it's still interesting data. That might indicate that your device is very low on memory.
User avatar
rowett
Moderator
Posts: 4596
Joined: January 31st, 2013, 2:34 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by rowett »

b-engine wrote: February 7th, 2025, 11:53 pm Despite running Chrome 132 on Android 9, I still get LifeViewer Standard instead of Pro; whatever problem happened?
Not sure. Please try here and hard refresh the browser. Make sure Help shows build 1239. If so and Pro is not available then it should show an error message. Let me know.
User avatar
b-engine
Posts: 3762
Joined: October 26th, 2023, 4:11 am
Location: Somewhere on where Earth At
Contact:

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by b-engine »

rowett wrote: February 8th, 2025, 9:25 am Not sure. Please try here and hard refresh the browser. Make sure Help shows build 1239. If so and Pro is not available then it should show an error message. Let me know.
I don't know what's exactly to "hard refresh" the browser. The help stills shows build 1238 - am I missing something?
User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 6697
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm
Location: learn to protect yourself against stray gliders and sparks and self-destruct mechanisms

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by confocaloid »

rowett wrote: February 8th, 2025, 9:23 am
confocaloid wrote: February 7th, 2025, 11:46 pm On my laptop, the displayed page scan time varies around 3.4 to 4.4 seconds.
Thanks. Please try again (same link) but please hard refresh your browser to ensure you get build 1239. I've adjusted the memory usage to see if it helps.
Build 1239, the displayed measurement varies between 2.9 and 3.1 seconds.

Refreshing that page while it is opened, causes a sequence of error messages:

Code: Select all

Failed to allocate 512 element Uint8 array for PatterManager.ruleArray
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 512 element Uint8 array for PatterManager.ruleArray
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 512 element Uint8 array for PatterManager.ruleArray
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 512 element Uint8 array for PatterManager.ruleArray
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 32 element Uint16 array for Life.blankRow16
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 2 element Uint16 array for Life.blankTileRow
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 512 element Uint8 array for Life.blankColourRow
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 256 element Uint32 array for Life.pixelColours
TypeError: va.memory is null

Failed to allocate 21 element Uint8 array for Life.nextStateExtended
TypeError: va.memory is null
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic CA, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.
User avatar
rowett
Moderator
Posts: 4596
Joined: January 31st, 2013, 2:34 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by rowett »

b-engine wrote: February 8th, 2025, 9:36 am
rowett wrote: February 8th, 2025, 9:25 am Not sure. Please try here and hard refresh the browser. Make sure Help shows build 1239. If so and Pro is not available then it should show an error message. Let me know.
I don't know what's exactly to "hard refresh" the browser. The help stills shows build 1238 - am I missing something?
See here.
User avatar
rowett
Moderator
Posts: 4596
Joined: January 31st, 2013, 2:34 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by rowett »

confocaloid wrote: February 8th, 2025, 9:51 am Build 1239, the displayed measurement varies between 2.9 and 3.1 seconds.
Great, thanks for the data. This shows that memory is certainly a factor.
confocaloid wrote: February 8th, 2025, 9:51 am Refreshing that page while it is opened, causes a sequence of error messages:
Yes, this is expected on this experimental build.
User avatar
rowett
Moderator
Posts: 4596
Joined: January 31st, 2013, 2:34 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: LifeViewer load times

Post by rowett »

I've added Safe Mode to LifeViewer to better deal with low memory devices. See here for how to use.

When a device is low on memory it starts using the page file (swapping memory out to storage) and this tanks application performance.

Here on the forum Safe Mode stops LifeViewer from adding SHOW IN VIEWER links to patterns using [[ MAXGRIDSIZE 14 ]]. This improves page scan time and saves memory.

On the Wiki it allows Thumbnails with [[ MAXGRIDSIZE 14 ]] but doesn't allow them to be launched. So you still get to see the pattern but can't use more memory by opening it.

Instead, hovering over the Thumbnail will display Copy and clicking it will copy the pattern RLE to the clipboard. You can disable the copy functionality with the [[ NOCOPY ]] script command.
Post Reply