> *I suggest to roll back ICU migration till the end of current milestone.* +1
Thanks, Aleksey, ESSD, Intel. On Nov 16, 2007 6:40 PM, Sergey Kuksenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to continue discussion about migration to new ICU which was done by > r592434 & r593469 commits. > This migration is a big deal and it should be done in any case. > However, after migration we got a set of problems like a set of failures and > performance degradations. > Some of the failures were already fixed, some of them are noticed on > http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/MigrateToICU ,some of them are noticed in > JIRA like (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5085) and I am > afraid that some of them are not yet detected. > Performance degradation you can see in JIRAs ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5129 & > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5122) > In general we may conclude that performance of SPECjbb2005 with DRLVM > decreased by 20%. > Moreover, according our results, performance of application servers measured > with EAStress degraded 3x times!!! > Also, there are a lot of small tests which can show degradation. > > And the key problem here that we have no so much time before code freeze in > December and it is not good to have new milestone release worse then > previous. > *I suggest to roll back ICU migration till the end of current milestone.* > Let's apply these patches exactly after beginning of the next milestone and > will work on all stability and performance problems together in next > milestone. I hope in that case we will have more time and tune new ICU more > efficiently. > > > -- > Best regards, > --- > Sergey Kuksenko. > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division. >
