Hi Rodric, Yes. I became aware of this issue when I read through OW code to map the activation timestamps to actual code stages. It's good to know that it's also documented.
Regards, -- Erez Erez Hadad, PhD Cloud System Technologies IBM Research - Haifa email: er...@il.ibm.com phone: +972-4-829-6509 From: Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 20/02/2019 20:19 Subject: Re: Proposing a new performance benchmark tool for OpenWhisk - overhead Erez, thanks for sharing the demo today. Really neat. You might know about this issue already which is relevant given the project you mentioned around rules and their performance. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dopenwhisk_issues_2614&d=DwIFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=Oo9B0p_tCCWIIum5GpjjqA&m=8USWzgpVr-6bs5sUC_VBVzWdDeS8a1TXjCkwTAG0pu0&s=BPJm6LCDJctatfygqYGcQKOErdmJPLA9tOM8E_lOLuM&e= -r > On Feb 19, 2019, at 3:03 AM, Erez Hadad <er...@il.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I'm seeking feedback on a new performance benchmark tool called overhead, > that I'm proposing for OpenWhisk. This tool contains several new > capabilities beyond exiting tools (wrk/gatling), such as benchmarking > rules (trigger-to-action) in addition to action invocations (sync and > async), deeper profiling without special setup/instrumentation (Kamino), > based on timestamps from the activation records, and more. Please have a > look at the README.md for details. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_IBM_overhead&d=DwIFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=Oo9B0p_tCCWIIum5GpjjqA&m=8USWzgpVr-6bs5sUC_VBVzWdDeS8a1TXjCkwTAG0pu0&s=GlefpRYfckmFH6rDPuybLgk65iCQPKoJMmNJ_izYTeM&e= > > Please review, use the tool, and comment - I'd like to contribute this > tool to the OW repo. > > Regards, > -- Erez > > Erez Hadad, PhD > Cloud System Technologies > IBM Research - Haifa > email: er...@il.ibm.com > phone: +972-4-829-6509 > > >
