perfsonar development work

["Vedrin Jeliazkov" <>]

Hi,

As Joe has suggested, I've run again the perfsonarUI 'Retrieve all' tests
against ESnet's (and also SWITCH's) newly installed RRD MAs (perfSONAR-1.0).
In the table below you can find the timings I've got, compared to the
respective older service releases.

1. One MetadataKeyRequest (summary) [sec]       
2. Number of Interfaces (NoI)   
3. (NoI x 2) SetupDataRequests (detailed summary) [sec]
4. Average SetupDataRequest [msec]
5. Average Link latency (RTT) [msec]
6. Implementation
        
                (1)     (2)     (3)     (4)     (5)     (6)     
        
ESNET           180     415     468      564    202     Java 0.1 (EGEE tag)
ESNET            63     419     890     1062    206     perfSONAR-1.0
SWITCH            5     272     488      897     51     Python 0.1-19 
SWITCH           17     272     171      314     54     perfSONAR-1.0

There's no any common trend between the two cases, probably because the older
service releases were different:

- MetadaKeyRequest response time is 3 times better for ESnet, but more than 3
times longer for SWITCH;

- SetupDataProcessing is 2 times longer for ESnet, but almost 3 times better
for SWITCH;

Having in mind the recent tests with Java RRD MA from SVN carried out here at
ISTF, I guess that MetadataKeyRequest processing performance would not be
anymore a big issue - we could expect an additional 3.5 times improvement, as
observed in ISTF's case.

There could be some concerns about SetupDataRequest processing performance. I
wonder why ESnet's newly installed service is taking 2 times more time than
the old one in this case... There are so many contributing factors that it
wouldn't be easy to answer this question. However, from end user's perspective
I think we should make all reasonable efforts to improve the performance in
each new release, in addition to the added new features.

Kind regards,
Vedrin