Hi Ori, We haven't fully analyzed the data we've already collected yet. I've done some work on that front today: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Performance_Analysis
The graphs we have on limn at the moment are definitely very crude, we'll improve them based on the one-off study I did today. While working on this I also found out that we needed this header: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/119027/ to be able to get all the information for image loads in production. So hopefully in a few days we'll be able to extract more information in regards to file size, bandwidth experience and varnish hits vs misses. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Fabrice Florin, 15/03/2014 00:13: >> >>> We would appreciate your advice on our upcoming research study of image >>> load times on Media Viewer. [...] >>> *I. Goals* >>> The goal of this study is to determine whether or not Media Viewer is >>> loading images fast enough for the majority of our users in most common >>> situations. >>> >>> As a typical user of the Media Viewer, I want images to load quickly, in >>> just a few seconds, so I don't have to wait a long time to see them. >>> [...] >>> >>> Definitions: [...] >>> *II. Questions* [...] >>> >>> *III. Outcomes* [...] >>> >> >> I'm confused. Too many questions, too many arbitrary definitions, axioms. >> No falsifiability. I understand the idea of defining a minimum quality >> standard to respect, it might even be the only way, but it's a thicket that >> moreover only indirectly verifies what we're actually interested in. >> At its root is simple, we need to know if readers enjoy the images/media >> more or get annoyed and don't look at them because they're too slow. >> (Measuring the value they get from the media, or attach to the page in >> consequence hence becoming more likely to visit the project more, is less >> clearcut.) So maybe there is some simple check for this, if surveys don't >> work maybe just the total number of requests or something. >> >> Nemo >> > > (Cross-posting to multimedia list since I think my reply there was > bounced.) > > Hey Federico, > > I hope you'll forgive me for some shameless (but brief) thread-jacking > that won't answer any of your questions but instead raise a couple of > tangential points. Apologies for the derail. > > I regret not being subscribed to the multimedia list (a mistake I plan to > rectify immediate after sending off this e-mail) and thus not having had > the chance to respond sooner. I haven't yet had a chance to review the > results, but I did have a chance to closely review the instrumentation code > that the Multimedia team devised for collecting these measurements, and I > can tell you that it is extremely sophisticated, making use of a web > performance API, the specification of which has graduated to W3C > recommendation status *last month*. I don't know yet if any errors were > made in the statistical sampling and aggregation of data (and I want to be > careful not to suggest that there have been any), but I do want to stress > that this represents a major technical achievement and that I think we will > glean a lot of insight about the performance of multimedia content on > Wikimedia wikis from this infrastructure for years to come. So, kudos for > that! > > --- > Ori Livneh > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Multimedia mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia > >
_______________________________________________ Multimedia mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
