Added it to my travis script:
https://github.com/wfreeman/cq/blob/master/.travis.yml

With it I get:
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%      3
  66%      3
  75%      3
  80%      3
  90%      3
  95%      4
  98%      4
  99%      5
 100%     11 (longest request)

Wes

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Michael Hunger <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> Wes gave me an idea, so I created a version of the Neo4j server that uses
> our testing-in-memory graph database,
> care to try it?
>
> https://github.com/jexp/neo4j-in-memory-server
>
> Cheers
>
> Michael
>
> Am 17.01.2014 um 02:52 schrieb Michael Hunger <
> [email protected]>:
>
> Good question, not sure about that.
>
> Indexing uses lucene behind the scenes, and adds some overhead.
>
> Michael
>
> Am 17.01.2014 um 02:42 schrieb Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>:
>
> So does that mean multiple fsync operations are done? I'm trying to figure
> out what would cause the extra 110ms of delay between no indexing and
> indexing one property.
>
> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:39:32 PM UTC-8, Michael Hunger wrote:
>>
>> Because it is transactional.
>>
>> So during your tx whenever things are changed / created that correspond
>> to the configured auto-indexing properties they are written to the index.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Am 17.01.2014 um 02:35 schrieb Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>:
>>
>> Hmm... turning off node_auto_indexing drops it from 150ms to 40ms.  Why
>> would auto indexing block a request?
>>
>> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:07:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Scheidel wrote:
>>>
>>> My hdparm results are 118 MB/sec which isn't horrible, but it seems like
>>> disk latency is the only thing that matters.  I guess I'll try going back
>>> to the stock settings and moving it over to an SSD and see what happens.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:34:30 PM UTC-8, Wes Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My macbook's virtualbox (running centos) got good results too (99%
>>>> <20ms, 50% <7ms). Was hoping for some weirdness. It is running on an ssd
>>>> (vintage 2011 macbook pro 13"), hdparm 250MB/sec, so not a great
>>>> comparison. Only has 800MB allocated for the VM RAM, using Neo4j stock
>>>> settings.
>>>>
>>>> Wes
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, definitely not great.  Odd though since I never had a problem
>>>>> when working with Postgres or Mongo and they force things to disk as well.
>>>>>  Never had local requests take more than a couple of ms and then I switch
>>>>> over to Neo4j and its almost unusable.  There are no flags to change the
>>>>> behavior for dev/test machines?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:00:10 PM UTC-8, Michael Hunger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so good latency during the test, or?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is my ioping (cool never heard of that one, nice tool).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> w/o ab
>>>>>> --- /tmp/ (hfs /dev/disk0s2) ioping statistics ---
>>>>>> 11 requests completed in 10.2 s, 32.1 k iops, 125.3 mb/s
>>>>>> min/avg/max/mdev = 21 us / 31 us / 50 us / 7 us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> w ab
>>>>>> 29 requests completed in 29.0 s, 33.1 k iops, 129.3 mb/s
>>>>>> min/avg/max/mdev = 20 us / 30 us / 109 us / 17 us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.01.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > And this is ioping without the ab test running:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 31 requests completed in 30.5 s, 3.2 k iops, 12.5 mb/s
>>>>>> > min/avg/max/mdev = 190 us / 312 us / 477 us / 63 us
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:51:32 PM UTC-8, Bill Scheidel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I ran vmstat while running the ab test:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system--
>>>>>> ----cpu----
>>>>>> >  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in  cs
>>>>>>  us  sy id wa
>>>>>> >  0  1      0 2429284 161572 2133284    0    0    22    75   98  354
>>>>>>  9  8 80  2
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I also ran ioping to check disk latency while the ab test was
>>>>>> running:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 190 requests completed in 3.3 min, 37 iops, 151.9 kb/s
>>>>>> > min/avg/max/mdev = 192 us / 26.3 ms / 178.1 ms / 26.5 ms
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Results from the ab run:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
>>>>>> >   50%    150
>>>>>> >   66%    158
>>>>>> >   75%    166
>>>>>> >   80%    168
>>>>>> >   90%    209
>>>>>> >   95%    276
>>>>>> >   98%    300
>>>>>> >   99%    324
>>>>>> >  100%    366 (longest request)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:33:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Hunger
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Let's continue this discussion here.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > To collect the other information so far: http://stackoverflow.com/
>>>>>> questions/21145723/neo4j-2-0-0-poor-performance-for-dev-test-
>>>>>> in-a-virtual-machine
>>>>>> > The GH issue you raised with Wes' and my answers:
>>>>>> https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/issues/1829
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > My "ab" tests: https://gist.github.com/jexp/8452037
>>>>>> > Wes' numbers: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/issues/1829#
>>>>>> issuecomment-32564561
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Your messages.log looks good to me.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > So it might be related to disk performance, could you run vmstat or
>>>>>> similar while running the ab test?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I think it is related to the forced fsync at commit which can be
>>>>>> hit by a higher disk latency?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Michael
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "Neo4j" group.
>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an email to [email protected].
>>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "Neo4j" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Neo4j" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Neo4j" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Neo4j" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to