Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests.
I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: > On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> Great! >> >> Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core >> is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too >> would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench >> deeper next week too. > > OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something > lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. > > Phil >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >>> On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>>> well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep >>>> benchs on a real app) it does worth it >>> Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of >>> instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for >>> the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it >>> would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if >>> maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with >>> this, I will report back with some benchmarks. >>> >>> Phil >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >>>>> On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>>>>> Hehe, right. >>>>>> >>>>>> I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the >>>>>> solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to >>>>>> previous values (N -> N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as >>>>>> important as I thought :(. >>>>> Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of >>>>> instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated >>>>> is a good one. See below. >>>>>> As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks >>>>>> I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks in all cases for your answers! >>>>> A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other >>>>> benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats >>>>> objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow >>>>> you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the >>>>> VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool >>>>> implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during >>>>> aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's >>>>> passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the >>>>> pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when >>>>> aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be >>>>> with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). >>>>> >>>>> Phil >>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>>>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>>>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>>>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>>>>>>> @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which >>>>>>>> would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was >>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>> for small investment but ok to postpone it >>>>>>> As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the >>>>>>> framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, >>>>>>> e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. >>>>>>> Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a >>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of >>>>>>>>> framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. >>>>>>>>> Not the >>>>>>>>> most important but enough to try to solve it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious >>>>>>>>> feedbacks if you think it is better >>>>>>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>>>>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be an >>>>>>>>>>> issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. >>>>>>>>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> a >>>>>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That isn't what I meant. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really think that more than one metric has to update >>>>>>>>>> (increment, >>>>>>>>>>>> say) at precisely the same time? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> metrics have to be updated all or nothing? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org