qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fraser Adams <fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++ broker
Date Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:47:30 GMT


On 25/07/14 15:30, Alan Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:31 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
>> On 24/07/14 13:59, Alan Conway wrote:
>>> Very important point I forgot to mention: are you doing a release
>>> build?
>>>
>>> cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
>>>
>>> That makes a big difference. It enables optimization flags for the C++
>>> compiler. The default is not optimized.
>>>
>> Alan,
>> I've mentioned this before, but I remain unconvinced that the default 										
																																																																																									
																																																																																									
																																											
>> should be for an unoptimised build. I totally realise that seems to be
>> "the CMake way", but it always used to be the case under automake that
>> the default was something reasonably optimised.
>>
>> If it turns out that your suggestion is indeed the cause of the
>> discrepancy I think that would back up the view that *at the very least*
>> the documentation for doing the build should mention this and if there
>> is still a general view to default to the unoptimised I actually think
>> that the CMake for qpid and proton should display a warning to remind
>> users that they are using an unoptimised build.
> I agree (not sure why I didn't before, probably not paying attention.)
> The default actually isn't any of the advertised build types (Debug,
> Release etc.) it's a "just ignore opt/debug flags" build which is not
> especially useful for anything. I never use it.
>
> So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
> performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
> someone who has trouble with their debugger (and since the default
> doesn't set -g anyway that doesn't appear to be a problem.)
>
> Any counter opinions? (as always, I assume silence is consent :)
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
Thanks for this discussion Alan!

My vote would be to default to the most optimised/operational-quality 
build possible. My reasoning being that I suspect that *most* people (if 
not all) coming in fresh would have a not unreasonable expectation that 
qpid would "just work" and moreover would "just work" at its best. Your 
"leave without asking questions" point is something that as a community 
I believe that we must have high on our list of things to avoid!

If the RelWithDebInfo is exactly as fast then that's probably OK, but if 
I'm honest I believe that the default should really be to build 
something that a user might want to ship in an operational 
mission-critical system and I'm not personally keen on the idea of 
shipping with debug symbols or anything else that could potentially 
increase an attack vector.

I'm more than happy that we supply documentation that tells users how to 
enable debugging etc. but all of that is really developer focussed IMHO 
and I think that the default should be first and foremost user focussed.

Frase






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message