From dev-return-30287-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Fri Nov 16 21:54:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 119E0180670 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 21:54:15 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 85565 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 2018 20:54:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geode.apache.org Received: (qmail 85554 invoked by uid 99); 16 Nov 2018 20:54:14 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:54:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E33EB182F1E for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:54:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JIUH8n6Fsg3c for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.150.38]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 3C7525F175 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0114581.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id wAGKodsY027108 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:54:03 GMT Received: from mail-pf1-f200.google.com (mail-pf1-f200.google.com [209.85.210.200]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nr7bf3bh8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:54:03 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f200.google.com with SMTP id j9-v6so20113449pfn.20 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:54:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=L04Vsupw+JBVszOOI5uLWqZiqS0au92UoLEvZ/iN8ks=; b=XdbQDH8PlYEqcbDEzlDdmSjmi3gzdUsECuNCX3BM0HBoVpVMnopFgymS14o7GhlNN1 dQiXft02/USNxWdSRHHnqfnJKiQhmNVostBFLkGP/nECrtKKoOYFqyY4zN/DT6FaTzGF xz6p69XzF3YDusiJDzyYyZKf0rh5v5IEtowbhVv04L72Gy1NqL3NS3zwBv0kIoazhNW3 zYXFfp3L0oYQLojxJEonDbl55qDmhzSVlaEGHrXIlQB85dVMnIH6SEvBAQiuqM/KJb9U ej/mIoUYsmCFgWUcNR6Q8FErsg8+yibeFcSiyCOEP31Te3suoAw92sSq9E8PH94rr5ae VDLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJ68+RaNnXpLhM+UHAfSDGZ404eTsIk3euPxyMA9bWhLMPq1nr4 ZOsCdHtqGAI9P2RHgpuPNyXbLZyoBCEv12t6oEivAmO/nf4u5G9MIwNo4T0E1Wvbmbk1IGUaX0p ac9kO6IZ0zOeP9JZ0rQW0kgda+oqrDSCJ/pp9p8c= X-Received: by 2002:a62:3a04:: with SMTP id h4mr12620229pfa.119.1542401642428; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:54:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eWwdU2DsrRFfEfQEQ6R2NfKQKVeKeu+izxGunHM7DE31oeUFpIpVxOBfAw/5msyJj+mPpogw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:3a04:: with SMTP id h4mr12620221pfa.119.1542401642092; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.118.19.14] (50-203-225-134-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.203.225.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c14-v6sm35595372pfc.92.2018.11.16.12.54.01 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:54:01 -0800 (PST) From: Kenneth Howe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\)) Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Create new repository for geode benchmarks Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:54:00 -0800 References: To: dev@geode.apache.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-11-16_11:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811160185 +1 to Dan=E2=80=99s proposal - just makes sense > On Nov 16, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Dan Smith wrote: >=20 > Hi Kirk, >=20 > What we're thinking of putting in geode-benchmarks are new, multi host > benchmarks of the full system with the public APIs, not = microbenchmarks. We > weren't planning on doing anything with the JMH benchmarks at the = moment. I > agree with you those should stay in the geode module they are testing, > since they generally are microbenchmarking internal APIs of that = module. >=20 > I appreciate you bringing those up though - I would like to get to the > point where we are running those microbenchmarks in CI as well! >=20 > -Dan >=20 > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:07 AM Kirk Lund wrote: >=20 >> That makes sense for some benchmarks but not others. For example, = while >> working on the Logging changes, I wrote a some benchmarks that = directly use >> some new internal code to ensure that the new changes perform well. >>=20 >> +1 to creating a benchmarks repo that has general perf tests that = will be >> run in the pipelines >>=20 >> -1 to getting rid of benchmarks from geode-core or any other = submodule >> because this will discourage developers from writing benchmarks = specific to >> new code as they write it -- we shouldn't be forced to write = benchmarks >> AFTER we commit to the main geode repo (or worse, after a release) >>=20 >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM Dan Smith wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi all, >>>=20 >>> We (Naba, Sean, Brian and I) would like to add some benchmarks for = geode, >>> with a goal of eventually running them as part of our concourse = build and >>> detecting performance changes. >>>=20 >>> We think it makes sense to put these benchmarks in a separate >>> geode-benchmarks repository. That will make them less tightly = coupled to >> a >>> specific revision of geode. What do you all think? If folks are okay = with >>> this, I will go ahead and create the repository. >>>=20 >>> We have some prototype code in this repository with a simple >> client/server >>> put benchmark: = https://github.com/upthewaterspout/geode-performance. >>>=20 >>> -Dan >>>=20 >>=20