From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 31 15:54:05 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F194016A4CE for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:54:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web41207.mail.yahoo.com (web41207.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8400243D5C for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:54:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from arne_woerner@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 51809 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Jan 2005 15:54:04 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=G++HD2OCkVyie/fSdiLlkhFjYsAxFzQaaVCaowatGwtMWOJhYSWmhWX/5an65ATaypLxJEuil09cMqicsvCrw9NNWm9QgS3HyRpRF5vlRfVzsdiAos3aALj2urJM86uzLFz/ZBsH08JkFVJowmslgm3tR5dbMWuRyuxP4Q/EVF0= ; Message-ID: <20050131155404.51807.qmail@web41207.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [83.129.209.68] by web41207.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:54:04 PST Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:54:04 -0800 (PST) From: Arne "Wörner" To: Robert Watson , "Jim C. Nasby" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Automated performance testing X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:54:05 -0000 --- Robert Watson wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > With all the discussion of performance testing between 4.11, > > 5.3, and Linux, would it be useful to make performance > > testing part of the automated testing that already occurs > > (via tinderbox, iirc). Doing so might make it easier to > > detect performance impacting changes, as well as > > making performance testing easier in general. > > Yes, it would be quite valuable. > [...] > I'd really like to see a small and fairly well-defined set of > tests run every couple of days so we can show long term graphs, > and catch regressions quickly. > Me, too. > Unfortunately, this is a bit harder than tinder-boxing, > because it involves swapping out whole system > configurations, recovering from the inevitable failure modes, > etc, which proves to be the usual sticking point in > implementing this. > Hmm... I believe, that a "dd bs=128k count=1000 of=/dev/null" (maybe with several iseek values) would be sufficient to detect the worst disadvantages. That test should be done on at least one box (always the same if possible), whenever a hard disc is changed (then the box has changed a little bit), and whenever there is a new release or some development progress. > However, I'd love to see someone work on it :-). > Me, too. May I try, please? Maybe I should admit, that I damaged my slices and partitions some days ago, but now everything works fine again... :-)) -Arne __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250