Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:54:32 -0700

I'm not hearing anyone -1-ing this anymore. I'm traveling today, but I'll take care of the patch when I'm back.
Doug -- it's unfortunate that time has been wasted by you, my students and others, but there is never an ill intention behind bugs and other oddities. They're just bugs and oddities, and they need to be fixed. Some fixes seem obvious, but in a socially complex ecosystem like OpenSim, even obvious fixes sometimes have consequences that need to be taken into account. 

On 4/25/2015 3:52 PM, Melanie wrote:

I had been under the impression that the "fudge factor" on these stats 
was common knowledge.
Good arguments have been brought for changing them to provide accurate 
metrics and I find I can't sustain an objection to progress, 
especially since SL appears to have a limited shelf life these days.
Announcing this well enough should be sufficient, because I somehow 
can't see how anyone using advanced monitoring tools could not be 
subscribed to one of the mailing lists.


- Melanie



On 25 Apr 2015, at 22:28, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:



I have heard this point brought up a few times and we concur.  As it 
turns out, the statistics we collected during the joint ARL/Intel DSG 
events (all 6 of them) are now in question.  We published results from 
those events in multiple conferences.  Further, I am devoting a 
significant amount of engineering labor hours to a team that currently 
includes 6 computer scientists, two of which have PhD's. The 
realization that we had been testing and sampling the open simulator 
for physics and scalability on bogus simulator data was shocking.



Folks, you may not realize this but knowingly propagating the 
erroneous code is intellectually dishonest and has already wasted 
precious research funding.  That we are even debating whether or not 
to fix the simulator reporting mechanisms is disturbing.



What we should be debating is "how".  The MOSES project has provided a 
solution that works for us and we need your knowledgeable feedback as 
core code experts to know if our solution is feasible for the community.


Douglas Maxwell, MSME
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Human Research & Engineering Directorate
Simulation & Training Technology Center
(c)(407) 242-0209 <tel:%28407%29%20242-0209>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* [email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> 
[[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Diva 
Canto [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]

*Sent:* Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:05 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted (UNCLASSIFIED)


I would like to hear from people who have either monitoring tools or 
bots that rely on the incorrect physics FPS. If these people exist, 
let's hear what pain it would cause them to correct the number. 
Otherwise, I don't see any reason to continue to report  an incorrect 
number, and I see many reasons for fixing it: several PhD students 
have now either wasted a lot of their time or even made wrong data 
analysis because of this.



On 4/24/2015 9:08 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:

It is more than just bots that worry me, many people have written 
custom monitoring tools to monitor region performance to 
automatically restart regions, not to mention script that could 
potentially rely on osGetRegionStats > 
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/OsGetRegionStats 
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> we could be 
potentially breaking all of this content if we are talking about long 
term leaving the statistics at these lower numbers, if we are talking 
about eventually having them resume to the normal levels etc.. that 
is something else, and if that is the case I would suggest we start a 
new branch for that work that would eventually merge into master once 
the work was complete.  Like i said I am not against doing this work, 
but not at the expense of causing mass chaos amongst important users 
and testers of this software, how can we say we are improving the 
software if we are rushing into breaking stuff people may be very 
reliant on.



On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Diva Canto <[email protected] 
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>> wrote:


    I'm +1 on the changes. I find it very unsettling to be shown a
    physics fps that is incorrect, and some of my students have been
    very confused about it in the past. I don't think the changes
    will affect bots in any significant way, but if someone can point
    me to a bot that will be affected, I would like to know.


    On 4/24/2015 6:23 PM, Dahlia Trimble wrote:

    I like the idea of a multiplier for physics fps, however I see
    no need for altering the value. If a reported number is linearly
    scaled, then any change in that number is also scaled
    proportionally. For example, if I have 55 fps reported for a
    real fps of 11 due to a scale factor of 5, all I need to do is
    divide by 5 to get the 11 back. If the 55 decreases by 10%, the
    11 will also decrease by 10%. It really shouldn't matter as
    either value will provide the same indication of change in
    performance.

    As far as SL compatibility goes, I usually see a physics fps of
    45 for a well running region in SL, not 55. In that case if such
    compatibility was desired, the factor would be 45/11 or
    approximately 4.1 rather than 5.

    On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni
    <[email protected]
    <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>> wrote:

        Also sounds like a reasonable solution as well, If the goal
        is to improve performance in general I am not sure it
        matters what is actually reported to the viewer , since i
        would assume any kind of real analysis would be done on the
        back end and not via the viewer #'s

        On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Mike Chase
        <[email protected]
        <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>> wrote:

            Why not just introduce a new counter and function to
            fetch the value.  The current one can always return the
            SL adjusted value.

            Mike


            On 04/24/2015 08:59 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:

            What do you think about making the multiplier a
            modifiable variable in OpenSim.ini? This will allow
            anyone who wants to improve performance and use the
            stock #'s and in the meantime people can continue to
            use the code in a meaningful way without having to
            rewrite scripts and monitoring tools to continue
            testing other code that may be pushed into core,
            especially if the end goal is to get statistics to
            report back at the original numbers?  I am mostly just
            trying to understand the end goal myself.  If that is
            not possible I would suggest this work be moved into a
            development branch until we can get statistics back to
            the normal numbers again? Otherwise we are talking
            about locking the code down to all other development
            until this process is complete, and no one has
            discussed any kind of time frame for this level of
            changes to complete, I would hate to put a complete
            halt to development in order for this to happen.  I am
            not against doing what you suggest, I just want to make

            sure we do it in the most efficient way possible. 
            Would be good to hear what others in the core

            development have to say, hopefully Justin and Diva and
            Melanie, Misterblue, BlueWall, you guys can chime in
            here as well, as I am only one person here and for the
            record just voicing my own concerns, I am far from the
            final say on any of this stuff.

            On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV
            USARMY ARL (US) <[email protected]
            <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
            wrote:

                Folks, before we can make any meaningful progress
                in performance enhancements to the open simulator
                we have to be able to rely on the simulator
                statistics. Currently they are (purposefully)
                misreported to make the simulator look like it is
                performing better than it really is. This is not
                acceptable if we are to dig in and begin to assist.

                Douglas Maxwell, MSME
                Science and Technology Manager
                Virtual World Strategic Applications
                U.S. Army Research Lab
                Human Research & Engineering Directorate
                Simulation & Training Technology Center
                (c) (407) 242-0209
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>

                ________________________________________
                From: [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                [[email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>]
                on behalf of Melanie [[email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>]
                Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 5:56 PM
                To: [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted
                (UNCLASSIFIED)

                It is also my opinion that this change isn't fit
                for core. If and
                when additional stats, like "real fps" and "physics
                engine fps" can
                be shown in the viewer, then that would be good but
                the viewer stats
                window should continue to show the fudged figures
                indefinitely. This
                is because people don't only use scripts but also
                bots to do
                monitoring and bots receive the same data the
                viewer receives.

                - Melanie

                On 24/04/2015 23:42, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
                > ok so just so I understand we should now see this
                actually just display
                > 11fps? Personally I think this is a bad idea,
                alot of people may be using
                > monitoring apps and scripts that look for low fps
                and restart the region,
                > we would basically be forcing everyone to rewrite
                a lot of code to
                > accommodate a singular purpose? Not quite sure
                how this improves the
                > project as a whole.
                >
                > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Michael Emory
                Cerquoni <
                > [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
                wrote:
                >
                >> ok I will continue testing this for now, we
                should try to resolve the
                >> white space issues before it hits core, we can
                worry about that later
                >> though. I hope others can start testing this
                patch as well we need to
                >> really make sure this does not break any scripts
                or monitoring apps before
                >> this changes the core code, so anyone who has
                the time please do test this
                >> and let us know if you notice anything change or
                break, thanks!
                >>
                >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Maxwell,
                Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <
                >> [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
                wrote:
                >>
                >>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
                >>> Caveats: NONE
                >>>
                >>> What you saw were just warnings about white
                spaces. The patch should
                >>> still
                >>> apply and work.  We follows the open simulator
                patch creation guidance
                >>> explicitly, if you guys have updated
                instructions for how you want this
                >>> done -
                >>> let us know. Otherwise, you can ignore the
                warnings.
                >>>
                >>> v/r -douglas
                >>>
                >>> Douglas Maxwell, MSME
                >>> Science and Technology Manager
                >>> Virtual World Strategic Applications
                >>> U.S. Army Research Lab
                >>> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
                >>> (c) (407) 242-0209
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> -----Original Message-----
                >>> From: [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>> [mailto:[email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>]
                On Behalf Of Michael Emory
                >>> Cerquoni
                >>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:38 PM
                >>> To: [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted
                >>>
                >>> please check the mantis, i had some trouble
                applying patch for testing,
                >>> thanks
                >>> guys!
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael
                Heilmann <[email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
                >>> wrote:
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>        Opensim Devs
                >>>
                >>>        Just an FYI, mantis bug #7540 is the
                first code submission from
                >>> project
                >>> MOSES. Thanks.
                >>>
                >>>        --
                >>>        Michael Heilmann
                >>>  Research Associate
                >>>  Institute for Simulation and Training
                >>>  University of Central Florida
                >>>
                >>>  _______________________________________________
                >>>  Opensim-dev mailing list
                >>> [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>>
                http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>>
                
<blockedhttp://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> --
                >>>
                >>> Michael Emory Cerquoni
                >>>
                >>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
                >>> Caveats: NONE
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> _______________________________________________
                >>> Opensim-dev mailing list
                >>> [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>>
                http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>
                >>
                >> --
                >> Michael Emory Cerquoni
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > _______________________________________________
                > Opensim-dev mailing list
                > [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                >
                http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                _______________________________________________
                Opensim-dev mailing list
                [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                _______________________________________________
                Opensim-dev mailing list
                [email protected]
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
                http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
                <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>





            -- 
            Michael Emory Cerquoni



            _______________________________________________
            Opensim-dev mailing list
            [email protected]  
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
            http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev  
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>



            _______________________________________________
            Opensim-dev mailing list
            [email protected]
            <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
            http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
            <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>





        -- 
        Michael Emory Cerquoni


        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [email protected]
        <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev 
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>




    _______________________________________________
    Opensim-dev mailing list
    [email protected]  
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
    http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev  
<https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>



    _______________________________________________
    Opensim-dev mailing list
    [email protected]
    <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
    http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
    <https://web-mont05.mail.mil/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





























					Reply via email to