Why does OpenGL not support multiple index buffers for vertex attributes (yet)?
To me it seems very useful, since you could reuse attributes and you would have a lot more control over the rendering of your geometry.
Is there a reason why all attribute arrays have to take the same index or could this feature be available in the near future?
OpenGL (and D3D. And Metal. And Mantle. And Vulkan) doesn't support this because hardware doesn't support this. Hardware doesn't support this because, for the vast majority of mesh data, this would not help. This is primarily useful for meshes that are predominantly not smooth (vertices sharing positions but not normals and so forth). And most meshes are smooth.
Furthermore, it will frequently be a memory-vs-performance tradeoff. Accessing your vertex data will likely be slower. The GPU has to fetch from two distinct locations in memory, compared to the case of a single interleaved fetch. And while caching helps, the cache coherency of multi-indexed accesses is much harder to control than for single-indexed accesses.
Hardware is unlikely to support this for that reason. But it also is unlikely to support it because you can do it yourself. Whether through buffer textures, image load/store or SSBOs, you can get your vertex data however you want nowadays. And since you can, there's really no reason for hardware makers to develop special hardware to help you.
Also, there are questions as to whether you'd really be making your vertex data smaller at all. In multi-indexed rendering, each vertex is defined by a set of indices. Well, each index takes up space. If you have more than 64K of attributes in a model (hardly an unreasonable number in many cases), then you'll need 4 bytes per index.
A normal can be provided in 4 bytes, using GL_INT_2_10_10_10_REV and normalization. A 2D texture coordinate can be stored in 4 bytes too, as a pair of shorts. Colors can be stored in 4 bytes. So unless multiple attributes share the same index (normals and texture coordinate edges happen at the same place, as might happen on a cube), you will actually make your data bigger by doing this in many cases.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Nowadays I'm hearing from different places about the so called GPU driven rendering which is a new paradigm of rendering which doesn't require draw calls at all, and that it is supported by the new versions of OpenGL and Vulkan APIs. Can someone explain how it actually works on conceptual level and what are the main differences with the traditional approach?
Overview
In order to render a scene, a number of things have to happen. You need to walk your scene graph to figure out which objects exist. For each object which exists, you now need to determine if it is visible. For each object which is visible, you need to figure out where its geometry is stored, which textures and buffers will be used to render that object, which shaders to use to render the object, and so forth. Then you render that object.
The "traditional" method handling this is for the CPU to handle this process. The scene graph lives in CPU-accessible memory. The CPU does visibility culling on that scene graph. The CPU takes the visible objects and access some CPU data about the geometry (OpenGL buffer object and texture names, Vulkan descriptor sets and VkBuffers, etc), shaders, etc, transferring this as state data to the GPU. Then the CPU issues a GPU command to render that object with that state.
Now, if we go back farther, the most "traditional" method doesn't involve a GPU at all. The CPU would just take this mesh and texture data, do vertex transformations, rasterizatization, and so forth, producing an image in CPU memory. However, we started off-loading some of this to a separate processor. We started with the rasterization stuff (the earliest graphics chips were just rasterizers; the CPU did all the vertex T&L). Then we incorporated the vertex transformations into the GPU. When we did that, we started having to store vertex data in GPU accessible memory so the GPU could read it on its own time.
We did all of that, off-loading these things to a separate processor for two reasons: the GPU was (much) faster at it, and the CPU can now spend its time doing something else.
GPU driven rendering is just the next stage in that process. We went from no GPU, to rasterization GPU, to vertex GPU, and now to scene-graph-level GPU. The "traditional" method offloads how to render to the GPU; GPU driven rendering offloads the decision of what to render.
Mechanism
Now, the reason we haven't been doing this all along is because the basic rendering commands all take data that comes from the CPU. glDrawArrays/Elements takes a number of parameters from the CPU. So even if we used the GPU to generate that data, we would need a full GPU/CPU synchronization so that the CPU could read the data... and give it right back to the GPU.
That's not helpful.
OpenGL 4 gave us indirect rendering of various forms. The basic idea is that, instead of taking those parameters from a function call, they're just data stored in GPU memory. The CPU still has to make a function call to start the rendering operation, but the actual parameters to that call are just data stored in GPU memory.
The other half of that requires the ability of the GPU to write data to GPU memory in a format that indirect rendering can read. Historically, data on GPUs goes in one direction: data gets read for the purpose of being converted into pixels in a render target. We need a way to generate semi-arbitrary data from other arbitrary data, all on the GPU.
The older mechanism for this was to (ab)use transform feedback for this purpose, but nowadays we just use SSBOs or failing that, image load/store. Compute shaders help here as well, since they are designed to be outside of the standard rendering pipeline and therefore are not bound to its limitations.
The ideal form of GPU-driven rendering makes the scene-graph part of the rendering operation. There are lesser forms, such as having the GPU do nothing more than per-object viewport culling. But let's look at the most ideal process. From the perspective of the CPU, this looks like:
Update the scene graph in GPU memory.
Issue one or more compute shaders that generate multi-draw indirect rendering commands.
Issue a single multi-draw indirect call that draws everything.
Now of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Doing full scene graph processing on the GPU requires building your scene graph in a way that is efficient for GPU processing. Even more importantly, visibility culling mechanisms have to be engineered with efficient GPU processing in mind. That's complexity I'm not going to address here.
Implementation
Instead, let's look at the nuts-and-bolts of making the drawing part work. We have to sort out a lot of things here.
See, the indirect rendering command is still a regular old rendering command. While the multi-draw form draws multiple distinct "objects", it's still one CPU rendering command. This means that, for the duration of this command, all rendering state is fixed.
So everything under the purview of this multi-draw operation must use the same shader, bound buffers&textures, blending parameters, stencil state, and so forth. This makes implementing a GPU-driven rendering operation a bit complicated.
State and Shaders
If you need blending, or similar state-based differences in rendering operations, then you are going to have to issue another rendering command. So in the blending case, your scene-graph processing is going to have to compute multiple sets of rendering commands, with each set being for a specific set of blending modes. You may also need to have this system sort transparent objects (unless you're rendering them with an OIT mechanism). So instead of having just one rendering command, you have a small number of them.
But the point of this exercise however isn't to have only one rendering command; the point is that the number of CPU rendering commands does not change with regard to how much stuff you're rendering. It shouldn't matter how many objects are in the scene; the CPU will be issuing the same number of rendering commands.
When it comes to shaders, this technique requires some degree of "ubershader" style: where you have a very few number of rather flexible shaders. You want to parameterize your shader rather than having dozens or hundreds of them.
However things were probably going to fall out that way anyway, particularly with regard to deferred rendering. The geometry pass of deferred renderers tends to use the same kind of processing, since they're just doing vertex transformation and extracting material parameters. The biggest difference usually is with regard to doing skinned vs. non-skinned rendering, but that's really only 2 shader variations. Which you can handle similarly to the blending case.
Speaking of deferred rendering, the GPU driven processes can also walk the graph of lights, thus generating the draw calls and rendering data for the lighting passes. So while the lighting pass will need a separate draw call, it will still only need a single multidraw call regardless of the number of lights.
Buffers
Here's where things start to get interesting. See, if the GPU is processing the scene graph, that means that the GPU needs to somehow associate a particular draw within the multi-draw command with the resources that particular draw needs. It may also need to put the data into those resources, like the matrix transforms for a given object and so forth.
Oh, and you also somehow need to tie the vertex input data to a particular sub-draw.
That last part is probably the most complicated. The buffers which OpenGL/Vulkan's standard vertex input method pull from are state data; they cannot change between sub-draws of a multi-draw operation.
Your best bet is to try to put every object's data in the same buffer object, using the same vertex format. Essentially, you have one gigantic array of vertex data. You can then use the drawing parameters for the sub-draw to select which parts of the buffer(s) to use.
But what do we do about per-object data (matrices, etc), things you would typically use a UBO or global uniform for? How do you effectively change the buffer binding state within a CPU rendering command?
Well... you can't. So you cheat.
First, you realize that SSBOs can be arbitrarily large. So you don't really need to change buffer binding state. What you need is a single SSBO that contains everyone's per-object data. For each vertex, the VS simply needs to pick out the correct data for that sub-draw from the giant list of data.
This is done via a special vertex shader input: gl_DrawID. When you issue a multi-draw command, the VS gets an input value that represents the index of this sub-draw operation within the multidraw command. So you can use gl_DrawID to index into a table of per-object data to fetch the appropriate data for that particular object.
This also means that the compute shader which generates this sub-draw also needs use the index of that sub-draw to define where in the array to put the per-object data for that sub-draw. So the CS that writes a sub-draw also needs to be responsible for setting up the per-object data that matches the sub-draw.
Textures
OpenGL and Vulkan have pretty strict limits on the number of textures that can be bound. Well actually those limits are quite large relative to traditional rendering, but in GPU driven rendering land, we need a single CPU rendering call to potentially access any texture. That's harder.
Now, we do have gl_DrawID; coupled with the table mentioned above, we can retrieve per-object data. So: how do we convert this to a texture?
There are multiple ways. We could put a bunch of our 2D textures into an array texture. We can then use gl_DrawID to fetch an array index from our SSBO of per-object data; that array index becomes the array layer we use to fetch "our" texture. Note that we don't use gl_DrawID directly because multiple different sub-draws could use the same texture, and because the GPU code that sets up the array of draw calls does not control the order in which textures appear in our array.
Array textures have obvious downsides, the most notable of which is that we must respect the limitations of an array texture. All elements in the array must use the same image format. They must all be of the same size. Also, there are limits on the number of array layers in an array texture, so you might encounter them.
The alternatives to array textures differ along API lines, though they basically boil down to the same thing: convert a number into a texture.
In OpenGL land, you can employ bindless texturing (for hardware that supports it). This system provides a mechanism that allows one to generate a 64-bit integer handle which represents a particular texture, pass this handle to the GPU (since it is just an integer, use whatever mechanism you want), and then convert this 64-bit handle into a sampler type. So you use gl_DrawID to fetch a 64-bit handle from the per-object data, then convert that into a sampler of the appropriate type and use it.
In Vulkan land, you can employ sampler arrays (for hardware that supports it). Note that these are not array textures; in GLSL, these are sampler types which are arrayed: uniform sampler2D my_2D_textures[6000];. In OpenGL, this would be a compile error because each array element represents a distinct bind point for a texture, and you cannot have 6000 distinct bind points. In Vulkan, an arrayed sampler only represents a single descriptor, no matter how many elements are in that array. Vulkan implementations have limits on how many elements there can be in such arrays, but hardware that supports the feature you need to employ this (shaderSampledImageArrayDynamicIndexing) will typically offer a generous limit.
So your shader uses gl_DrawID to get an index from the per-object data. The index is turned into a sampler by just fetching the value from the sampler array. The only limitation for textures in that arrayed descriptor is that they must all be of the same type and basic data format (floating-point 2D for sampler2D, unsigned integer cubemap for usamplerCube, etc). The specifics of formats, texture sizes, mipmap counts, and the like are all irrelevant.
And if you're concerned about the cost difference of Vulkan's array of samplers compared to OpenGL's bindless, don't be; implementations of bindless are just doing this behind your back anyway.
I did a lot of researches concerning the way to gather vertex data into groups commonly called batches.
Here's for me the 2 main interesting articles on the subject:
https://www.opengl.org/wiki/Vertex_Specification_Best_Practices
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/opengl/opengl-batch-rendering-r3900
The first article explains what are the best practices on how to manipulate VBOs (max size, format etc).
The second presents a simple example on how to manage vertex memory using batches. According to the author each batch HAS TO contains an instance of a VBO (plus a VAO) and he insists strongly on the fact that the maximimum size of a VBO is ranged between 1Mo (1000000 bytes) to 4Mo (4000000 bytes). The first article advice the same thing. I quote "1MB to 4MB is a nice size according to one nVidia document. The driver can do memory management more easily. It should be the same case for all other implementations as well like ATI/AMD, Intel, SiS."
I have several questions:
1) Does the maximum byte size mentionned above is an absolute rule ? Is it so bad to allocate VBO with a byte size more important than 4Mo (for example 10 Mo) ?
2) How can we do concerning meshes with a total vertex byte size larger than 4Mo? Do I need to split the geometry into several batches?
3) Does a batch inevitably store as attribute a unique VBO or several batches can be store in a single VBO ? (It's two different ways but the first one seems to be the right choice). Are you agree ?
According to the author each batch handle a unique VBO with a maximum size between 1 and 4 Mo and the whole VBO HAS TO contain only vertex data sharing the same material and transformation information). So if I have to batch an other mesh with a different material (so the vertices can't be merged with existing bathes) I have to create a new batch with a NEW vbo instanciated.
So according to the author my second method is not correct : it's not adviced to store several batches into a single VBO.
Does the maximum byte size mentionned above is an absolute rule ? Is it so bad to allocate VBO with a byte size more important than 4Mo (for example 10 Mo) ?
No.
That was a (very) old piece of info that is not necessarily valid on modern hardware.
The issue that led to the 4MB suggestion was about the driver being able to manage memory. If you allocated more memory than the GPU had, it would need to page some in and out. If you use smaller chunks for your buffer objects, the driver is more easily able to pick whole buffers to page out (because they're not in use at present).
However, this does not matter so much. The best thing you can do for performance is to avoid exceeding memory limits entirely. Paging things in and out hurts performance.
So don't worry about it. Note that I have removed this "advice" from the Wiki.
So according to the author my second method is not correct : it's not adviced to store several batches into a single VBO.
I think you're confusing the word "batch" with "mesh". But that's perfectly understandable; the author of that document you read doesn't seem to recognize the difference either.
For the purposes of this discussion, a "mesh" is a thing that is rendered with a single rendering command, which is conceptually separate from other things you would render. Meshes get rendered with certain state.
A "batch" refers to one or more meshes that could have been rendered with separate rendering commands. However, in order to improve performance, you use techniques to allow them all to be rendered with the same rendering command. That's all a batch is.
"Batching" is the process of taking a sequence of meshes and making it possible to render them as a batch. Instanced rendering is one form of batching; each instance is a separate "mesh", but you are rendering lots of them with one rendering call. They use their instance count to fetch their per-instance state data.
Batching takes many forms beyond instanced rendering. Batching often happens at the level of the artist. While the modeller/texture artist may want to split a character into separate pieces, each with their own textures and materials, the graphics programmer tells them to keep them as a single mesh that can be rendered with the same textures/materials.
With better hardware, the rules for batching can be reduced. With array textures, you can give each mesh a particular ID, which it uses to pick which array layer it uses when fetching textures. This allows the artists to give such characters more texture variety without breaking the batch into multiple rendering calls. Ubershaders are another form, where the shader uses that ID to decide how to do lighting rather than (or in addition to) texture fetching.
The kind of batching that the person you're citing is talking about is... well, very confused.
What do you think about that?
Well, quite frankly I think the person from your second link should be ignored. The very first line of his code: class Batch sealed is not valid C++. It's some C++/CX Microsoft invention, which is fine in that context. But he's trying to pass this off as pure C++; that's not fine.
I'm also not particularly impressed by his code quality. He contradicts himself a lot. For example, he talks about the importance of being able to allocate reasonable-sized chunks of memory, so that the driver can more freely move things around. But his GuiVertex class is horribly bloated. It uses a full 16 bytes, four floats, just for colors. 4 bytes (as normalized unsigned integers) would have been sufficient. Similarly, his texture coordinates are floats, when shorts (as unsigned normalized integers) would have been fine for his use case. That would cut his per-vertex cost down from 32 bytes to 10; that's more than a 3:1 reduction.
4MB goes a lot longer when you use reasonably sized vertex data. And the best part? The OpenGL Wiki page he linked to tells you to do exactly this. But he doesn't do it.
Not to mention, he has apparently written this batch manager for a GUI (as alluded to by his GuiVertex type). Yet GUIs are probably the least batch-friendly rendering scenario in game development. You're frequently having to change state like bound textures, the current program (which reads from the texture or not), blending modes, the scissor box, etc.
Now with modern GPUs, there are certainly ways to make GUI renderers a lot more batch-friendly. But he never talks about them. He doesn't mention techniques to use gl_ClipDistance as a way to do scissor boxes with per-vertex data. He doesn't talk about ubershader usage, nor does his vertex format provide an ID that would allow such a thing.
As previously stated, batching is all about not having state changes between objects. But he focuses entirely on vertex state. He doesn't talk about textures, programs, etc. He doesn't talk about techniques to allow multiple objects to be part of the same batch while still having separate transforms.
His class can't really be used for batching of anything that couldn't have just been a single mesh.
I am writing an opengl application and for vertices, normals, and colors, I am using separate buffers as follows:
GLuint vertex_buffer, normal_buffer, color_buffer;
My supervisor tells me that if I define an struct like:
struct vertex {
glm::vec3 pos;
glm::vec3 normal;
glm::vec3 color;
};
GLuint vertex_buffer;
and then define a buffer of these vertices, my application will gets so much faster because when the position is cached the normals and colors will be in cache line.
What I think is that defining such struct is not having that much affect on the performance because defining the vertex like the struct will cause less vertices in the cacheline while defining them as separate buffers, will cause to have 3 different cache lines for positions, normals and colors in the cache. So, nothing has been changed. Is that true?
First of all, using separate buffers for different vertex attributes may not be a good technique.
Very important factor here is GPU architecture. Most (especially modern) GPUs have multiple cache lines (data for Input Assembler stage, uniforms, textures), but fetching input attributes from multiple VBOs can be inefficient anyway (always profile!). Defining them in interleaved format can help improve performance:
And that's what you would get, if you used such struct.
However, that's not always true (again, always profile!) - although interleaved data is more GPU-friendly, it needs to be properly aligned and can take significantly more space in memory.
But, in general:
Interleaved data formats:
Cause less GPU cache pressure, because the vertex coordinate and attributes of a single vertex aren't scattered all over in memory.
They fit consecutively into few cache lines, whereas scattered
attributes could cause more cache updates and therefore evictions. The
worst case scenario could be one (attribute) element per cache line at
a time because of distant memory locations, while vertices get pulled
in a non-deterministic/non-contiguous manner, where possibly no
prediction and prefetching kicks in. GPUs are very similar to CPUs in
this matter.
Are also very useful for various external formats, which satisfy the deprecated interleaved formats, where datasets of compatible data
sources can be read straight into mapped GPU memory. I ended up
re-implementing these interleaved formats with the current API for
exactly those reasons.
Should be layouted alignment friendly just like simple arrays. Mixing various data types with different size/alignment requirements
may need padding to be GPU and CPU friendly. This is the only downside
I know of, appart from the more difficult implementation.
Do not prevent you from pointing to single attrib arrays in them for sharing.
Source
Further reads:
Best Practices for Working with Vertex Data
Vertex Specification Best Practices
Depends on the GPU architecture.
Most GPUs will have multiple cache lines (some for uniforms, others for vertex attributes, others for texture sampling)
Also when the vertex shader is nearly done the GPU can pre-fetch the next set of attributes into the cache. So that by the time the vertex shader is done the next attributes are right there ready to be loaded into the registers.
tl;dr don't bother with these "rule of thumbs" unless you actually profile it or know the actual architecture of the GPU.
Tell your supervisor "premature optimization is the root of all evil" – Donald E. Knuth. But don't forget the next sentence "but that doesn't mean we shouldn't optimize hot spots".
So did you actually profile the differences?
Anyway, the layout of your vertex data is not critical for caching efficiency on modern GPUs. It used to be on old GPUs (ca. 2000), which is why there were functions for interleaving vertex data. But these days it's pretty much a non-issue.
That has to do with the way modern GPUs access memory and in fact modern GPUs' cache lines are not index by memory address, but by access pattern (i.e. the first distinct memory access in a shader gets the first cache line, the second one the second cache line, and so on).
I have an openGL program that doesn't use lighting or shading of any kind; the illusion of shadow is done completely through textures, since the meshes are low-poly. Faces are not backculled, and I wouldn't use normal-mapping of course.
My question is, should I define the vertex normals anyway? Would excluding them use fewer resources and speed rendering, or would excluding them negatively impact the performance/visuals in some way?
My question is, should I define the vertex normals anyway?
There is no need to, if they are not used.
Would excluding them use fewer resources and speed rendering, or would excluding them negatively impact the performance/visuals in some way?
It definitively wouldn't impact the visuals if there are not used.
You do not mention if you use old fixed-function pipeline or the modern programmable pipeline. In the old fixed-function pipeline, the normals are only used for the lighting calculation. The have nothing to do with the face culling. The front/back sides are determined solely by the primitive winding order in screen space.
If you use the programmable pipeline, the normals are used for whatever you use them. The GL itself will not care at all about it.
So excluding them should result in less memory needed for the object to be stored. If rendereing actually gets faster is hard to predict. If the normals aren't used, they shouldn't even be fetched, no matter if they are provided or not. But caching will also have an impact here, so the improvement of not fetching them might not be noticeable at all.
Only if you are using immediate mode(glBegin()/glEnd()) to specify geometry (which you really should never ever do), excluding the normals will save you one gl function call per vertex, and this should give a significant improvement (but still will be orders of magnitude slower than using vertex arrays).
If normals are not used for lighting, you don't need them (they are not used for back-face culling either).
The impact of performance is more about how this changes your vertex layout and resulting impact on pre-transform cache (assuming you have interleaved vertex format). Like on CPU's, GPU's fetch data in cache lines, and if without (or with) normals you get better alignment with cache lines, it can have an impact on the performance. For example if your vertex size is 32 bytes and removal of the normal gets it down to 20 bytes this will cause GPU fetching 2 cache lines for some vertices, while with 32 byte vertex format it's always fetches only one cache line. However, if your vertex size is 44 bytes and removal of normal gets it down to 32 bytes, then for sure it's an improvement (better alignment and less data).
However, this is quite a fine level optimization in the end and unlikely have any significant impact either way unless you are really pushing huge amount of geometry through the pipeline with very lightweight vertex/pixel shaders (e.g. shadow pass).
What are some common guidelines in choosing vertex buffer type? When should we use interlaced buffers for vertex data, and when separate ones? When should we use an index array and when direct vertex data?
I'm searching for some common quidelines - I some cases where one or the opposite fits better, but not all cases are easily solvable. What should one have in mind choosing the vertex buffer format when aiming for performance?
Links to web resources on the topic are also welcome.
First of all, you can find some useful information on the OpenGL wiki. Second of all, if in doubt, profile, there are some rules-of-thumb about this one but experience can vary based on the data set, hardware, drivers, ... .
Indexed versus direct rendering
I would almost always by default use the indexed method for vertex buffers. The main reason for this is the so called post-transform cache. It's a cache kept after the vertex processing stage of your graphics pipeline. Essentially it means that if you use a vertex multiple times you have a good chance of hitting this cache and being able to skip the vertex computation. There is one condition to even hit this cache and that is that you need to use indexed buffers, it won't work without them as the index is a part of this cache's key.
Also, you likely will save storage, an index can be as small as you want (1 byte, 2 byte) and you can reuse a full vertex specification. Suppose that a vertex and all attributes total to about 30 bytes of data and you share this vertex over let's say 2 polygons. With indexed rendering (2 byte indices) this will cost you 2*index_size+attribute_size = 34 byte. With non-indexed rendering this will cost you 60 bytes. Often your vertices will be shared more than twice.
Is index-based rendering always better? No, there might be scenarios where it's worse. For very simple applications it might not be worth the code overhead to set up an index-based data model. Also, when your attributes are not shared over polygons (e.g. normal per-polygon instead of per-vertex) there is likely no vertex-sharing at all and IBO's won't give a benefit, only overhead.
Next to that, while it enables the post-transform cache, it does make generic memory cache performance worse. Because you access the attributes relatively random, you might have quite some more cache misses and memory prefetching (if this would be done on the GPU) won't work decently. So it might be (but measure) that if you have enough memory and your vertex shader is extremely simple that the non-indexed version outperforms the indexed version.
Interleaving vs non-interleaving vs buffer per-attribute
This story is a bit more subtle and I think it comes down to weighing some properties of your attributes.
Interleaved might be better because all attributes will be close together and likely be in a few memory cachelines (maybe even a single one). Obviously, this can mean better peformance. However, combined with indexed-based rendering your memory access is quite random anyway and the benefit might be smaller than you'd expect.
Know which attributes are static and which are dynamic. If you have 5 attributes of which 2 are completely static, 1 changes every 15 minutes and 2 every 10 seconds, consider putting them in 2 or 3 separate buffers. You don't want to re-upload all 5 attributes every time those 2 most frequent change.
Consider that attributes should be aligned on 4 bytes. So you might want to take interleaving even one step further from time to time. Suppose you have a vec3 1-byte attribute and some scalar 1-byte attribute, naively this will need 8 bytes. You might gain a lot by putting them together in a single vec4, which should reduce usage to 4 bytes.
Play with buffer size, a too large buffer or too many small buffers may impact performance. But this is likely very dependent on the hardware, driver and OpenGL implementation.
Indexed vs Direct
Let's see what you get by indexing. Every repeating vertex, that is, a vertex with "smooth" break will cost you less. Every singular "edge" vertex will cost you more. For data that's based on real world and is relatively dense, one vertex will belong to many triangles, and thus indexes will speed it up. For procedurally generated arbitrary data, direct mode will usually be better.
Indexed buffers also add additional complications to the code.
Interleaved vs Separate
The main difference here is actually based on a question "will I want to update only one component?". If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't interleave, because any update will be extremely costly. If it's no, using interleaved buffers should improve locality of reference and generally be faster on most of the hardware.