Hi doug,
No flames assumed.
I tried to explain within my limited English skills, my understanding
of the nature of the issue on OpenSim. Melanie and others expressed it better
possible.
About the use of the statistics sent to viewers as profiling tools.
Guess it is not necessary to mention that we do know about the scaling factor
and have a idea of reliability of some parameters and even know the ones still
totally broken.
For more complete profile the short answer is: we don’t use them.
Our current code already contributions that did result from detailed
profiling with goals similar to yours. As example amongst others, I can
remember the work done by Intel teams. The article starting at
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/opensimulator-virtual-world-server-case-study-part-1
By Robert Adams, (that you already know as a member of our team) is just a
small expression what they did.
This just to mention one organization with well defined work methodologies like
yours.
Meanwhile we will try to fake very accurately.
Regards,
Leal Duarte(Ubit Umarov)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maxwell, Douglas
CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 16:37
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Still on Sim and Phys Frames
per Second (FPS) (UNCLASSIFIED)
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
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of dz
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:54 PM
To: [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] <
Caution-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] <
Caution-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] <
Caution-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]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
