That's good data, Denis. If we could get similarly stable results out of the test framework, then my fears on that front would definitely be unfounded.
McQ. From: Denis Roy <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 2012/09/05 20:48 Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 Sent by: [email protected] On 09/05/2012 05:12 PM, Mike Wilson wrote: 2) Working through the issues caused by running the performance tests on shared devices. [snip] In a world with potentially other tasks running on the same machines, wildly variable network traffic, etc. I don't think our current performance testing story will work. Before we discount performance tests on shared hardware, it might be worth a try. In https://bugs.eclipse.org/33359 I set up a virtual server with one dedicated CPU core and a few gigabytes of dedicated RAM as a proof-of-concept. The same host server also supports other virtual servers used by hudson.eclipse.org as Hudson slaves. When I timed a 3.5 second operation executed repeatedly over the course of a normal 24-hour period (24,000 times), the results were remarkable consistent (to a few hundredths of a second). The actual methodology and results are described in comment https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=333594#c20. If need be, we can dedicate a physical disk to the virtual server if startup times or disk I/O need to be benchmarked, and we can dedicate additional CPU cores and RAM if the current setup is insufficient. Physical hardware dedicated to a single task is costly in terms of maintenance, rack space, power and cooling. Denis If that's true, it means it will be a *lot* of work to get them running again. Btw, if anyone has good insights on this and/or wants to help us get the tests running again, we'd love to get your help. McQ. Inactive hide details for "Andrey Loskutov" ---2012/09/05 16:16:17---Hi, Listening to all this 4.2 performance discussions here"Andrey Loskutov" ---2012/09/05 16:16:17---Hi, Listening to all this 4.2 performance discussions here and for example at From: "Andrey Loskutov" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2012/09/05 16:16 Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 Sent by: [email protected] Hi, Listening to all this 4.2 performance discussions here and for example at [1] I would like to ask if the is a plan to re-enable performance regression tests for Eclipse (3.8.x / 4.2.x) platform as we had in the past before they were disabled in Juno (see [2]). If there is no such plan yet, shouldn't we have one? [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=385272 [2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform-releng/Transition_Plans_for_Platform_builds_after_Juno_M6 Regards, Andrey On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:29:31 +0200, <[email protected]> wrote: > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:21:10 -0400 > From: John Arthorne <[email protected]> > To: Cross project issues <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 > Message-ID: > <of6b7596fb.b62ef228-on85257a70.0048e946-85257a70.00495...@ca.ibm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I suggest anyone having problems to add constructive details on that bug. > For example profiler output when repeatedly performing a slow operation, > what plugins are installed, whether it is reproducible with vanilla > Eclipse SDK, etc. There are some users reporting pervasive slowdowns, and > for many others it is performing well. Something like a listener leak > could have effects like this in conjunction with particular installed > plugins. It takes time after any major release to isolate and resolve > problems like this. > > John > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Hallgren <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > For various reasons I had to switch my development environment from 4.2 > to > 3.8 today. I was stunned by the performance improvement after the switch. > The 3.8 platform is much MUCH faster. It boots faster, it closes windows > faster, it shows menus faster, etc. It also seems to consume less memory > and be less buggy. The way things stand right now, there's just no way > I'll switch back to 4.2! > > I must say I was very surprised by this. Why is the 4.2 platform what's > being fronted on the Eclipse download page when it's user experience and > quality is lagging behind this much? Is it just me who have had this > experience? > > Regards, > Thomas Hallgren > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:29:22 -0700 > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[email protected]> > To: "'Cross project issues'" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 > Message-ID: <001201cd8b6a$76b74950$6425dbf0 $@[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thomas, > > > You are certainly not the only one seeing performance issues with 4.2. I > go back and forth between 4.2 and 3.8 every day depending on the project > I need to work on and the difference is quiet noticeable even on very > fast hardware. The part I notice the most is the lengthy close all > editors process. After drilling down into some task and opening a few > dozen editors, clearing workbench of open editors takes several seconds. > I can literally watch tabs disappear one by one. The same operation is > practically instantaneous on 3.8. > > > For stability, user experience and performance reasons, you will find > that many third party distros have stayed on 3.8 for Juno. > > > I don?t begrudge 4.x its growing pains. It is a complex technological > shift with a lot of promise. What I find most troubling is the decision > process that led to the use of 4.2 for Juno distros. When the decision > was made, it was plainly evident that 4.2 wasn?t going to match 3.8 on > any of the quality metrics. IDE users might have been ok with quality > drop if 4.2 delivered compelling new functionality that you couldn?t get > in 3.8, yet there is no tangible functional delta. The value of 4.x > platform is for RCP developers and to certain limited extent for IDE > plugin developers. Certainly not for IDE users. The refreshed > look-n-feel has been touted as a big end user feature of 4.2, but the > new look-n-feel itself has numerous issues that leave it looking like an > unfinished project. > > > Sadly, the user reaction that we?ve been seeing over the last several > months has been entirely predictable. > > > - Konstantin -- Kind regards, Mit freundlichen Grüßen Andrey Loskutov +Andrey: http://plus.google.com/u/0/113794713998126448910 _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
