perfsonar development work

["Vedrin Jeliazkov" <>]

Hi Chris,

Chris Welti 
<>
 wrote:

> Hi Vedrin,
> 
> you should re-run tests as we have changed disk read ahead caches 
> when changing from python to java. This might also have had an impact on
> performance. I also updated our configuration, as we've had lots of link
> changes and upgrades this year.

Many thanks for this info!

> Anyway, I've started the old python installation again in parallel to the
> new java session, in case you want to run new comparisons.
> 
> python:    http://archive.sonar.net.switch.ch:8090
> java:     
>
http://archive.sonar.net.switch.ch:8180/axis/services/MeasurementArchiveService

Thanks again!

Unfortunately, I was not able to run the tests against your Java version of
RRD MA, because it is experiencing some eXist related problem, as suggested by
this message:

- - - - 8< - - - -

org.perfsonar.service.commons.exceptions.SystemException:
[unknown]:
Can't perform XQuery: org.exist.EXistException:
result set unknown or timed out

- - - - 8< - - - -

It looks like either your eXist is not running, not responding or not
accessing the correct database data.

Kind regards,
Vedrin
 
> Vedrin Jeliazkov wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>