DigiWorldz and Great Canadian Grid are running the newer code with stats
reporting 11fps without issue.
When we first made the change, we let everyone know and we've never yet
had any complaints about it.
I've not seen any issues regarding the change on my end so far.
I personally prefer the corrected stats and I think as long as everyone
is made aware of the changes and the reasons, I don't think there would
be any issues.
I am a fan of the Architect Frank Lloyd Wright and I remember reading a
story about him once...
Someone had complained to him that his design on one of his builds was
very poor and it was leaking water each time it rained... his reply...
grab a bucket and catch the water.
While his build looked awesome, it had an obvious flaw, but instead of
addressing it, he indicated using a bucket to catch the water would fix
the issue.
Isn't that what we are essentially doing here... grabbing buckets?
I personally prefer a roof which doesn't leak.
~Terry
On 11/9/2015 12:31 PM, Zadark Portal wrote:
+1 dz
I cannot add to the well informed technical reasonings already
contributed.
But, the suggested amendment is purely cosmetic. I fail to understand
why grid operators are persistently unable to portray the importance
of accurate measurements to their clients.
Of equal concern is perpetuating a culture where non evidence based
observations prevail within the user community only to be dismissed by
equally subjective reasoning.
+1 dz (again)
Z
On 9 November 2015 at 16:37, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
+1 dz
I'm not trying to start a flame war, so pls take these comments as
my own
opinion.
To be honest, I don't understand how the counter-argument to accurate
reporting could possibly be taken seriously. We have done some
intense
troubleshooting on the OpenSimulator to try to find where
instabilities and
performance enhancements can make most sense. Pandering to the
users by
artificially inflating the numbers does no one any good and is
quite frankly,
weak sauce. I'm sorry the lag meters don't work anymore, but that
is the
consequence of improperly reporting the stats in the first place.
The correct
fix here isn't to re-break stats reporting.
Secondly, I don't understand how the Devs plan(!) to address the
three major
components of the CORE that need work to improve stability and
scalability.
We (MOSES) are testing the new PhysX addition and could not do our
jobs
without proper stats reporting. In fact, months of work (and
money) was wasted
last year when we attempted to address physics issues and
profiling only to
find out we couldn't trust the data we were collecting!
Our next work will involve addressing the client manager issues
and will
hopefully yield a workable architecture to allow dozens of people
to log in
simultaneously without lag or impact on the rest of the
simulator. Again,
can't do this without proper stats reporting.
Think of this as a MacOSX moment. Might break some old things,
but in the end
you will be better for it.
v/r -doug
Douglas Maxwell, Ph.D.
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209 <tel:%28407%29%20242-0209>
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of dz
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:54 PM
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys
Frames per
Second (FPS)
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
verify the
identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a
Web browser.
________________________________
The issue is promoting accurate reporting of basic performance
measurement
statistics. ( something that has not achieved nearly enough
serious
attention )
Significant money and manpower is currently being directed at
efforts to
improve simulator performance.
It is a simple fact that the continued funding of these efforts
relies on
documenting the ACTUAL improvement against the ACTUAL original
performance
characteristics.
It is impossible to justify these efforts when the reported
numbers are
"made up" and THAT fact is not documented except in some obscure
comment
left behind in the source code.
It is unfortunate that the original decision to include a "Fudge
factor
multiplier" has created a pool of mis-informed users ( including
myself and
the viewer developers ) .
This mistake was complicated by the fact that until very recently
there was a
philosophical divide that prevented OpenSim and viewer developers
from
cooperating on issues like these.
This decision to "play pretend" with performance stats effectively
damaged the
reporting credibility of everyone who published these
inaccurate results,
It also created a rift between the OpenSim and viewer developers
over the
decision to NOT discuss the impact of implementing the change.
The fact
is, there are numerous places in the OpenSim framework where
numbers are
"made up" just so that a number appears in performance reports.
That an
effort is being made to correct those sources of mis-information
should be
welcomed.
It seems to me that the decisions made by core should be made in
favor of
supporting the ongoing efforts to accurately document and improve
simulator
performance.
Justin realized this and lead many of the efforts to add some
measurement
metrics. Even with those efforts, we still cannot measure basic
statistics like Events per Second sent to the script engine, or
tie those
events to whatever script is handling them. This makes
identifying the
scripts ACTUALLY responsible for "lagging" a region impossible
using the
traditional TOP SCRIPTS report in region manager window.
I would agree that a simple solution might be to allow grid
managers to add
back the Fudge Factor to appease their vocal users, but would
disagree that
the PROPER decision should be to continue to report inaccurate
results. It
would be just as easy to implement a multiplier in the viewer
code "Lag
Meter", This would also allow the accurate reporting of
statistics in the
Advanced Statistics window and administrative reporting. I
believe it was
also one of the suggested resolutions put forth by the viewer
developers... It
should be clear to anyone who has spent time in world that the
"lag meter" is
incorrect... You can walk, build, chat and TP with the same
level of sim
performance as you could before the numbers were changed. We've
overlooked
the fact that viewers have behaved differently in OpenSim and
"that other
grid" for years. Why is it "all of a sudden" CRITICAL that
this one
viewer feature HAS to be the same? In these days when core
developers
are releasing viewers, I cannot understand the urgency of
accommodating a
minor feature of one viewer whose developers have already
demonstrated a
willingness to work with OpenSim to tailor a configuration to meet
our needs.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Melanie <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <
Caution-mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >
wrote:
The issue here is the so-called "lag meter". Since removal
of the
multiplier, this reports all opensim regions as laggy, without
exception. Users' trust in the "lag meter" is damaging OpenSim
reputation. This is not a value that is merely for
display; the
viewer uses this value for computations that are then used to
"judge" a sim to be "laggy" if it's below 35 or so fps.
OpenSim now
always reports a lesser value. This is damaging and needs
to be made
configurable and by default match the viewer's expectations.
- Melanie
On 07/11/2015 16:38, Seth Nygard wrote:
> While I understand the arguments surrounding the
original decision to
> report values closely matching "the other grid", IMHO
doing so created
> an incorrect understanding in many users' minds of how
things work
> and/or behave. We are not that other grid and should
never pretend to
> be. Had figures been reported correctly in the
beginning then there
> would be no confusion now surrounding this subject.
However avoiding
> confusion is a poor reason to roll back and once again
report the
> artificially inflated values. It is better to simply
educate and make
> it clear that the value of 11fps is indeed the correct
value to expect,
> and is in fact the true value things always have ran at
despite what any
> inflated reported value said.
>
> It is true that many scripts and tools have already been
written to use
> the inflated values but they can all be changed with
relative ease. The
> viewers already have many aspects that are different for
Open Simulator
> so they can be changed easily as well for new versions
also with
> relative ease. All we need to do as a community is
establish what the
> correct and expected values are and then document and
communicate them.
>
> As a user, scripter, tool developer, and grid manager, I
for one want to
> see true and accurate values for any and all metrics
regardless of where
> they are shown or how they may be used. I therefore am
firmly against
> rolling back to any older artificially inflated values.
>
> Regards
> -Seth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <
Caution-mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
>
Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
<
Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <
Caution-mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>
Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
<
Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
_______________________________________________
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
--
---------------------
*Terry Ford*
DigiWorldz Grid
http://digiworldz.com
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
