Here are my 1.1.1 results on the same hardware/kernel/spidermonkey:
{"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.1.1"}
real 0m32.029s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.006s
Wendall
On 02/29/2012 01:30 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
Benoit, could you run the 1.7.0 test for longer? Say, double the size
of BULK_COUNT?
Wendall, that's a useful new data point. Any chance you could compare
1.1.1 with 1.2 so we can line it up with the other results?
B.
On 29 February 2012 19:40, Wendall Cada<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm using the bash script provided by Robert Newson.
Linux version 3.2.7-1.fc16.i686.PAE
([email protected]) (gcc version 4.6.2 20111027 (Red
Hat 4.6.2-1) (GCC) )
spidermonkey 1.8.5
i686
{"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.0.3"} (from stock fedora rpm Release:
2.fc16)
real 0m35.652s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.006s
{"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.2.0"} git 4cd60f3d1683
real 0m20.134s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s
Wendall
On 02/28/2012 05:17 AM, Jason Smith wrote:
Forgive the clean new thread. Hopefully it will not remain so.
If you can, would you please clone https://github.com/jhs/slow_couchdb
And build whatever Erlangs and CouchDB checkouts you see fit, and run
the test. For example:
docs=500000 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl
That should run the test and, God willing, upload the results to a
couch in the cloud. We should be able to use that information to
identify who you are, whether you are on SSD, what Erlang and Couch
build, and how fast it ran. Modulo bugs.
