Hi Pieter,

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:06:13PM +0200, PiBa-NL wrote:
> Things certainly look better again now regarding this issue.

Ah cool!

> Running the test repeatedly, and manually looking over the results its
> pretty much as good as it was before. There seems to be a 1 ms increase in
> the check-duration, but maybe this is because of the moved initialization
> which on startup delays the first test a millisecond or something?

It should not. At this point I think it can be anything including measurement
noise or even thread assigment on startup!

> Below some test results that are based on manual observation and some in my
> head filtering of the console output.. (mistakes included ;) )
> repeat 10 ./vt -v ./work/haproxy-*/reg-tests/checks/tls_health_checks.vtc |
> grep Layer7 | grep OK | grep WARNING
> Commit-ID , min-max time for +-95% check durations , comment
> e4d7c9d , 6 - 9 ms ,     all tests pass  (1 tests out of +- a hundred showed
> 29ms , none below 6ms and almost half of them show 7ms)

Great!

> 6ec902a , 11 - 150 ms ,  of the 12 tests that passed

That's quite a difference indeed.

> e186161 , 5 - 8 ms ,     all tests pass  (1 test used 15 ms, more than half
> the tests show 5ms check duration the majority of the remainder show 6ms)

OK!

> I'm not sure if this deserves further investigation at the moment, i think
> it does not. Thanks for spending your weekend on this :) that wasn't my
> intention.

Oh don't worry, you know I'm a low-level guy, just give me a problem to solve
with a few bits available only and I can spend countless hours on it! Others
entertain themselves playing games, for me this is a game :-)

Thanks a lot for testing, at least we know there isn't another strange
thing hidden behind.

Cheers,
Willy

Reply via email to