Options-LibreOffice-Memory page has some settings that control Image and OLE caches: [Image Cache] Use for LibreOffice: X MB 190 Memory per object: X MB 12 Remove from memory after: XX:XX hh:mm 10 [Cache for Inserted Objects] Number of objects: N 20 Their corresponding settings are /org.openoffice.Office.Common/Cache/GraphibManager/TotalCacheSize /org.openoffice.Office.Common/Cache/GraphibManager/ObjectCacheSize /org.openoffice.Office.Common/Cache/GraphibManager/ObjectReleaseTime /org.openoffice.Office.Common/Cache/DrawingEngine/OLE_Objects and this setting seems to depend on latter: /org.openoffice.Office.Common/Cache/Writer/OLE_Objects The settings control caches, i.e. how long do *unused* graphic objects stay in memory to speed up their reuse if need arises, and how much of them are kept. These settings don't control other memory-related aspects of LO; and they generally are unrelated to performance issues in LO. But it's common misconception among users that in case of performance problems in LO, this page settings needs to be tweaked to try to fix those problems. There are plenty of such advises in all user support forums. My suggestion is to remove this settings page altogether, and only allow changing the settings using Expert Configuration dialog.
I fully support this.
But we must be sure 'Use for LibreOffice' it's updated when updating LibreOffice, old values under 48MB it's where the slowness is very visible. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760#c8
Last 3 commits that changed the limits: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=75c272c1 (the one mentioned in comment 2) https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=41de4df1 https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=55baf61c (In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #2) > But we must be sure 'Use for LibreOffice' it's updated when updating Does it now? The default values aren't stored in user profile (registrymodifications.xcu) until user changes any of them manually. It means that *unchanged* values are updated with each LO update that has new defaults. However, we cannot "update" user-defined values. The change is not going to change the way it is now.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #3) > Last 3 commits that changed the limits: > Does it now? The default values aren't stored in user profile > (registrymodifications.xcu) until user changes any of them manually. It > means that *unchanged* values are updated with each LO update that has new > defaults. However, we cannot "update" user-defined values. The change is not > going to change the way it is now. Thanks for the clarification. I'm agree on remove them, if some one has changed it, I guess it was for a higher value.
A patch is in gerrit: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/40640
Mike Kaganski committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=765398294b872d01fba5345a7aa65f310ff27868 tdf#110448: Remove "Memory" page from Options dialog It will be available in 6.0.0. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
On Windows the "Memory" Page contains the [ ] Load LibreOffice during system start-up option. What will happen with this setting?
Personally i dont think this was a good idea, especially when the better way to go is to provide users with a simplified options dialog (bug 90989) and we can still retain the complex options dialog that we have today.
@Mike, as noted in comment 7, the Quickstart/QuickLaunch could be toggled from this panel of the Options dialog--where did it get relocated? Or is it in Expert Config as well (I couldn't find it)?
Oh! Missed that actually. Need to move it somewhere...
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #10) > Oh! Missed that actually. Need to move it somewhere... LO: General, or maybe Load/Save: General (since quickstart is supposed to be helpful for shorter opening). Otherwise a new stanza in Expert Configuration?
Restored the setting on General page: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/44508
Mike Kaganski committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=6502ebb0e977f6bea305e5e1598520a6b8b9f770 Related: tdf#110448: move Quickstart options to General page It will be available in 6.0.0. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
this bug is a problematic for Ubuntu and Linux Mint users who have installed the last LTS version of their preferred OS nearly 200 of my linux clients have LO installed, i can't tell them to upgrade their OS while this bug is still present (a lot of them are using the fast start and some of them need to set the memory at a higher value) i've tested the patch on 6.0.3 > not working & can't delete it (installed the zip with the extension manager, i hope this is the right way to do it) and the bug is also present in 6.0.5 & 6.0.5.2 (versions easy to install) could you tell when it will be solved ?
(In reply to pioutw from comment #14) > could you tell when it will be solved ? Which specific bug are you talking about? This bug 110448 is dedicated to removal of the memory page from Options, and it was done in 6.0 (so that the page is removed successfully). We don't expect this to be fixed further. Users who need Quickstart now find the relevant option on General page. Users who need to change memory settings (why, btw? is that really needed, or is there a misunderstanding among your users what the LO memory settings actually do, and a cargo cult?), can use Expert configuration on Advanced tab, looking for values mentioned in comment 0.
And by the way: Linux quickstart is finally removed completely in https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=3e9c908b73f0fe0978c9980750a06bbc9e02295e, which will be in 6.1 already.
memory setting is not a problem since we can set it in the advanced section but for me, this: "And by the way: Linux quickstart is finally removed completely in " is the biggest regression i've ever seen in a program I hope this will not encourage Linux users to switch back to Win thank you for your answer Mike
Great idea, I took 40 min to do what I should have done in 1 minute
Usual "found this thread, and was affected by the problem so I registered an account" disclaimer. Here is my use case: I run a video game 501(c)3 dedicated to using video games quite literally for the betterment of humanity. It is one of our core missions along with others: To save every video game. Ever. To tell the stories of not just the developers, but of their communities. To use video games for the betterment of humanity. Full stop. And I just lost over an hour of work because after a full reinstall of Pop OS! to Xubuntu, then an install, and then reinstall of LibreOffice... LO Draw froze. Again. I was proofing a grant proposal, and after switching to FireFox I came back to the same problem where the entire application wasn't responsive, and the recovered draft was two hours old. After looking for solutions I finally navigated here. After increasing each setting one at a time, troubleshooting it by increasing the next one from its default value from within an interface where IT WAS PURPOSELY REMOVED FROM BEING A CLEARLY AVAILABLE OPTION, another two hours later here I am. Problem fixed. Mr. Kaganski fell into the still existing stereotype of the developer who pats away users who obviously aren't technically savvy enough to find a solution to, and have created a Knowledge Base article for an obtuse fix. Removing the options? Fine. Hide them as yes they're advanced functionality. But no one here spent even a little time actually addressing "what is actually happening to people?" instead noting as Mr. Kaganski did: "why, btw? is that really needed, or is there a misunderstanding among your users what the LO memory settings actually do, and a cargo cult?" Increase the default values. Ask for logs from the people commenting on this thread. Do anything except disregard an ongoing bug widespread enough to be the top result Google returns to a person performing a search on a number of queries. I'm stupidly thankful for the LibreOffice NPO, the work of everyone here, but I also lost several hours (likely around seven) to resolving a glitch that was purposely buried by the developers instead of being addressed. Another NPO was actually, measurably, and acutely damaged multiple times because of the process LibreOffice employs to remove functionality from its product. Usual "sure you'll just dismiss me" and I need to get back to proofing this proposal, but you can't argue the hurt it has caused.
(In reply to Noah Bacon from comment #19) Please do not tell bullshit. First. Your problem would arise no matter if the settings were there in the dialog or not. The settings existence in the dialog does not heal problems proactively. You would need to get the problem, to start looking for the ways to resolve; and then the options there would still not help you unless you knew what you are doing. You would lose no less time, only would not have a reason to post your rant to this issue (and possibly would find another place). Second. These settings are *for expert users*. So "still existing stereotype of the developer who pats away users who obviously aren't technically savvy enough to find a solution to" is about nothing. I am experienced enough exactly in providing help to users, to know how confusing and dangerous these settings are *for users who obviously aren't technically savvy enough*. Nothing prevents people from creating knowledge base today, as it happened previously, since the settings are there. The user just needs to realize they are on their own when they tweak something in expert configuration. Next. You could read above (comment 3), that the defaults are being changed from time to time, and that happens when developers feel that would benefit most users (there are pros and contras for smaller and larger values there, or else there wouldn't be a need for the setting). If you imply that there should be work put into making it work without the need to tweak anything - yes you are right, and the work is being done (see e.g. https://tomazvajngerl.blogspot.com/2018/04/improving-image-handling-in-libreoffice.html) - but if you imply that I needed to not do this change, and instead fix all memory handling problems and shortcomings, you are trying to tell me what to do (please don't, unless you want me to answer to such things symmetrically), and you are making a usual mistake "if I require that a developer A does not do X, and instead go and does Y, then it will be all done *for the betterment of humanity*". If developer A can do X does not imply they can, or want, or have time to do Y, and trying to prevent me from doing an improvement in X doesn't give you Y. But the settings removed *were* harmful for most. Full stop.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #20) > (In reply to Noah Bacon from comment #19) > > Please do not tell bullshit. > > First. Your problem would arise no matter if the settings were there in the > dialog or not. The settings existence in the dialog does not heal problems > proactively. You would need to get the problem, to start looking for the > ways to resolve; and then the options there would still not help you unless > you knew what you are doing. You would lose no less time, only would not > have a reason to post your rant to this issue (and possibly would find > another place). > > Second. These settings are *for expert users*. So "still existing stereotype > of the developer who pats away users who obviously aren't technically savvy > enough to find a solution to" is about nothing. I am experienced enough > exactly in providing help to users, to know how confusing and dangerous > these settings are *for users who obviously aren't technically savvy > enough*. Nothing prevents people from creating knowledge base today, as it > happened previously, since the settings are there. The user just needs to > realize they are on their own when they tweak something in expert > configuration. > > Next. You could read above (comment 3), that the defaults are being changed > from time to time, and that happens when developers feel that would benefit > most users (there are pros and contras for smaller and larger values there, > or else there wouldn't be a need for the setting). If you imply that there > should be work put into making it work without the need to tweak anything - > yes you are right, and the work is being done (see e.g. > https://tomazvajngerl.blogspot.com/2018/04/improving-image-handling-in- > libreoffice.html) - but if you imply that I needed to not do this change, > and instead fix all memory handling problems and shortcomings, you are > trying to tell me what to do (please don't, unless you want me to answer to > such things symmetrically), and you are making a usual mistake "if I require > that a developer A does not do X, and instead go and does Y, then it will be > all done *for the betterment of humanity*". If developer A can do X does not > imply they can, or want, or have time to do Y, and trying to prevent me from > doing an improvement in X doesn't give you Y. But the settings removed > *were* harmful for most. Full stop. Here is the reality: I had to change these settings to stop LibreOffice from constantly freezing for no discernible reason across multiple installs of Ubuntu including a complete reinstall. Settings which were not just knowingly buried, but their utility of by users to resolve the exact same issue I encountered having been mocked by a developer. Now the issue was closed. Again. I'm not sure what would justify re-evaluating some solution to this feature removal than a mountain load of people having created articles around resolving it. Beyond all that while I do understand that a user coming into the bug tracking system to note a issue in a very frustrated way is at most annoying, mocking the mission of another non-profit is even more so.
(In reply to noah from comment #21) > Here is the reality: I had to change these settings to stop LibreOffice from > constantly freezing for no discernible reason across multiple installs of > Ubuntu including a complete reinstall. Settings which were not just > knowingly buried, but their utility of by users to resolve the exact same > issue I encountered having been mocked by a developer. You have some specific case, which does not match the case for vast majority of users. You had been able to do that, and the options in Expert configuration helped you no less than if they were in the dialog. Being in expert configuration, they did not confuse multiple other users. I do not see the big problem you are complaining about here: the problem that LibreOffice has a problem handling *some specific, unnamed use case* is a *different* issue, that needs an own report, with a sample document or steps to repro, and it may get a proper fix, e.g. by identifying a problem in memory manager, and improving its work, without need of hacking with memory constants that are known to have adverse effects. > Now the issue was closed. Again. I'm not sure what would justify > re-evaluating some solution to this feature removal than a mountain load of > people having created articles around resolving it. A user could spend some time studying how to use the project's bug tracker. E.g., one could read this bug carefully, and see that it is named "Remove "Memory" page from Options dialog". Comprehending the title, and the description, could enable one to understand that the task *is complete*, and thus the issue *must be closed*. One could also understand, that to *undo* the change, one needs *another* report, which would ask for the opposite, with "See Also" to this bug, with description of the problem, use case, and how would the revert make work easier for people, and not confuse multiple other people. > Beyond all that while I do understand that a user coming into the bug > tracking system to note a issue in a very frustrated way is at most > annoying, mocking the mission of another non-profit is even more so. No one is "mocking the mission of another non-profit". Bugs happen. Fixes are possible. Expressing one's frustration is counter-productive, and rude. This bug is fixed. Stop abusing the tracker. You are welcome to use it as intended. Thanks.