|
On 09/05/2012 05:12 PM, Mike Wilson
wrote:
2) Working through the issues
caused by running the performance tests on shared devices.
[snip]
In a world with potentially
other tasks running on the same machines, wildly variable
network traffic, etc. I don't think our current performance
testing story will work.
Before we discount performance tests on shared hardware, it might be
worth a try.
In https://bugs.eclipse.org/33359 I set up a virtual server with one
dedicated CPU core and a few gigabytes of dedicated RAM as a
proof-of-concept. The same host server also supports other virtual
servers used by hudson.eclipse.org as Hudson slaves.
When I timed a 3.5 second operation executed repeatedly over the
course of a normal 24-hour period (24,000 times), the results were
remarkable consistent (to a few hundredths of a second). The actual
methodology and results are described in comment
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=333594#c20.
If need be, we can dedicate a physical disk to the virtual server if
startup times or disk I/O need to be benchmarked, and we can
dedicate additional CPU cores and RAM if the current setup is
insufficient.
Physical hardware dedicated to a single task is costly in terms of
maintenance, rack space, power and cooling.
Denis
If that's true, it means it
will be a *lot* of work to get them running again. Btw, if
anyone has good insights on this and/or wants to help us get
the tests running again, we'd love to get your help.
McQ.
 "Andrey Loskutov"
---2012/09/05 16:16:17---Hi, Listening to all this 4.2
performance discussions here and for example at
From: "Andrey Loskutov"
<loskutov@xxxxxx>
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
cross-project-issues-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2012/09/05 16:16
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
Listening to all this 4.2 performance discussions here and for
example at
[1] I would like to ask if the is a plan to re-enable
performance
regression tests for Eclipse (3.8.x / 4.2.x) platform as we
had in the
past before they were disabled in Juno (see [2]).
If there is no such plan yet, shouldn't we have one?
[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=385272
[2]
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform-releng/Transition_Plans_for_Platform_builds_after_Juno_M6
Regards,
Andrey
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:29:31 +0200,
<cross-project-issues-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:21:10 -0400
> From: John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8
versus 4.2
> Message-ID:
>
<OF6B7596FB.B62EF228-ON85257A70.0048E946-85257A70.0049582F@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I suggest anyone having problems to add constructive
details on that bug.
> For example profiler output when repeatedly performing a
slow operation,
> what plugins are installed, whether it is reproducible
with vanilla
> Eclipse SDK, etc. There are some users reporting
pervasive slowdowns, and
> for many others it is performing well. Something like a
listener leak
> could have effects like this in conjunction with
particular installed
> plugins. It takes time after any major release to isolate
and resolve
> problems like this.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Hallgren
<thomas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For various reasons I had to switch my development
environment from 4.2
> to
> 3.8 today. I was stunned by the performance improvement
after the switch.
> The 3.8 platform is much MUCH faster. It boots faster, it
closes windows
> faster, it shows menus faster, etc. It also seems to
consume less memory
> and be less buggy. The way things stand right now,
there's just no way
> I'll switch back to 4.2!
>
> I must say I was very surprised by this. Why is the 4.2
platform what's
> being fronted on the Eclipse download page when it's user
experience and
> quality is lagging behind this much? Is it just me who
have had this
> experience?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:29:22 -0700
> From: "Konstantin Komissarchik"
<konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Cross project issues'"
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8
versus 4.2
> Message-ID:
<001201cd8b6a$76b74950$6425dbf0$@komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thomas,
>
>
> You are certainly not the only one seeing performance
issues with 4.2. I
> go back and forth between 4.2 and 3.8 every day depending
on the project
> I need to work on and the difference is quiet noticeable
even on very
> fast hardware. The part I notice the most is the lengthy
close all
> editors process. After drilling down into some task and
opening a few
> dozen editors, clearing workbench of open editors takes
several seconds.
> I can literally watch tabs disappear one by one. The same
operation is
> practically instantaneous on 3.8.
>
>
> For stability, user experience and performance reasons,
you will find
> that many third party distros have stayed on 3.8 for
Juno.
>
>
> I don?t begrudge 4.x its growing pains. It is a complex
technological
> shift with a lot of promise. What I find most troubling
is the decision
> process that led to the use of 4.2 for Juno distros. When
the decision
> was made, it was plainly evident that 4.2 wasn?t going to
match 3.8 on
> any of the quality metrics. IDE users might have been ok
with quality
> drop if 4.2 delivered compelling new functionality that
you couldn?t get
> in 3.8, yet there is no tangible functional delta. The
value of 4.x
> platform is for RCP developers and to certain limited
extent for IDE
> plugin developers. Certainly not for IDE users. The
refreshed
> look-n-feel has been touted as a big end user feature of
4.2, but the
> new look-n-feel itself has numerous issues that leave it
looking like an
> unfinished project.
>
>
> Sadly, the user reaction that we?ve been seeing over the
last several
> months has been entirely predictable.
>
>
> - Konstantin
--
Kind regards,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Andrey Loskutov
+Andrey: http://plus.google.com/u/0/113794713998126448910
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|
