Hi Mike, There is quite a lot missing from our old IBM build that we have not yet been able to get running on eclipse.org hardware. There is a reasonably good summary of that state in [1], mentioned on this list in the past [2]. All of this is the same for both the 3.8 and 4.2 builds, so maybe a little off topic for this thread. In any case, here are some pointers for anyone interested in helping:
Correctness/regression tests: There are many tests still failing in Hudson that pass when running on developer machines. There is a master bug with pointers to all the remaining open issues [3]. This umbrella bug is also linked to the 4.2 release download page, along with a pointer to manual verification of the failures that occurred in the release build. That list is steadily shrinking and webmasters have been very helpful so far in tracking problems down. Performance tests: There is an existing summary with detailed pointers to the work that is needed here: https://bugs.eclipse.org/374441 Code coverage: Details on why it was removed are found in bug 373594. I have opened this bug to track work that is needed to re-enable them: https://bugs.eclipse.org/388956 Mac tests: The mac test machine in particular has been difficult to get any kind of tests to run on consistently. Tests take a very long time, and frequently DNF. We heard rumours of a new mac test machine at eclipse.org, which I think would be a big help here. Any help is certainly welcome. While significant performance work happened in the Juno release, the first priorities were compatibility and correctness. John [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform-releng/Transition_Plans_for_Platform_builds_after_Juno_M6 [2] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg07471.html [3] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=381873 "Mike Milinkovich" <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 09/05/2012 05:32 PM Please respond to [email protected]; Please respond to Cross project issues <[email protected]> To "'Cross project issues'" <[email protected]> cc Subject Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 McQ, I have to admit that today was the first time that I realized that we had stopped doing performance testing and test coverage analysis. It was not what I would consider a pleasant surprise. The EMO can help. Both in finding computing resources and and helping to raise awareness that the community needs to step up to help. The first step in resolving most issues is stating the requirements. Is there a document anywhere that describes what the platform team would need in order to reinstate performance testing in a meaningful way? From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson Sent: September-05-12 5:12 PM To: Cross project issues Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 We definitely *want* to re-enable the performance tests. The two things that have been holding it up currently are: 1) Resources to get them working on the foundation hardware 2) Working through the issues caused by running the performance tests on shared devices. When we had a lab to hold dedicated performance machines we put a lot of effort into configuring and managing them so they behaved as close to exactly the same as possible. For example, there was one time that the RAM in a machine failed and we were able to see the impact of replacing that RAM (even though it was rated the same) as a difference in the test results. 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. 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. "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
<<image/gif>>
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
