Hi all,
Having heard no objections to proceeding with finding somebody to do a
software performance analysis, I have created a page on the wiki at
http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=dev:testing:performance_issues
where we can identify the pain points that need further evaluation and
add any questions that we hope a performance analysis might be able to
answer.
I have started the list off with some basic issues/questions that have
come up in our own systems. During the future of the staff client
meeting, Dan Scott had mentioned that there might be three points of
attack:client, opensrf, database. I thought dividing the list into
those three areas might be a good way to start.
I'm hoping that all the knowledgeable sys admins out there who have a
stronger understanding of the system architecture than I do can build
this list into something that might be a good starting point for any
performance evaluation, whether it's done by a third party or by
somebody in the Evergreen community. By identifying the questions we
hope a performance evaluation might answer, we are also identifying what
our expectations are before we enter the process. I would want to be
clear on our expectations before formally talking to any third party so
that we can be fully informed about whether an evaluation could meet
those expectations.
Kathy
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
[email protected]
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
On 2/20/2013 2:26 PM, Mike Rylander wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Kathy Lussier <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi all,
I wasn't sure if I should add this to the QA discussion, but it
seemed worthy of its own thread.
During the "future of the staff client" meeting, I advocated for
bringing in a consultant to do a software performance analysis for
Evergreen to help us identify where the critical bottlenecks are
in the system in the hopes that we could then identify the areas
that need to be worked on to improve performance. At the time, I
didn't have any concrete suggestions on finding a consultant who
could take on this project, but I have since done some more
investigation and have a couple of leads, the most promising of
which is an individual local to Massachusetts who previously
worked for many years at Stratus Technologies where he was
involved in all levels of performance analysis. He now teaches
graduate-level courses on performance evaluation and also does
contract work.
Now that I actually have concrete leads, I would like to get the
ball rolling, provided there is support from the larger community.
I'm not quite sure how this might fit in with ESI's planned QA
efforts or with the possibility of bringing in a firm like OmniTI
as Dan suggested, but my reading into these QA e-mails is that the
focus would be on testing new commits.
I want to clarify something that Dan seems to have assumed
incorrectly: that anything ESI does is mutually exclusive with
bringing in outside expertise. Nobody has any grounds to stop such an
effort, and it would be ridiculous to argue otherwise, words put into
my mouth notwithstanding. The initial focus of an ESI effort will be
what exists today, through infrastructure, so that what exists
tomorrow can then be tested.
As for how it would fit in, ESI would absorb and internalize any
advice or direction, just like any other community member, and work
within the community to incorporate that.
So, why have ESI involved at all? Besides the fact that we create a
significant portion of the code, and that it benefits us as much as
anyone to have a more stable Evergreen, there is a need for ongoing,
active leadership in QA. The fact is that it has not materialized
yet, so we're looking for a way to make that a maintainable
proposition for the community's benefit. That means ongoing, deep
integration with both developer and user communities. And that is not
something that we can expect from OmniTI or any other organization
that is not plugged into those communities. Could some other
organization step into that role, and provide years of ongoing QA
support? Perhaps so, but ESI exists today and has the Evergreen
expertise needed to avoid long (and costly) ramp-up time.
The point is this, though, ESI will encourage any effort to improve
Evergreen, and is willing and able to work in the community, as we
always do, to further those efforts.
Thanks, Kathy!
--
Mike Rylander
| Director of Research and Development
| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com
