Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-16 Thread Damian Johnson 
Hi Karsten, hi Philipp, added these benchmarks to our site...

https://stem.torproject.org/tutorials/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall.html#are-there-any-other-parsing-libraries

Cheers! -Damian
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-15 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 14/01/16 17:22, Damian Johnson wrote:
> Oh, forgot to talk about compression. You can run the stem script 
> against compressed tarballs but python didn't add lzma support
> until python 3.3...
> 
> https://stem.torproject.org/faq.html#how-do-i-read-tar-xz-descriptor-archives
>
>  I suppose we could run over bz2 or gz tarballs, or upgrade python.
> But can't say the compressed benchmark is overly important.

I just ran all the Stem measurements using Python 3, which now
includes xz tarballs.  The table below contains all results:

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz:
 - metrics-lib: 0.334261 ms
 - Stem[**]: 0.63 ms (188%)

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.28543 ms
 - Stem: 1.02 ms (357%)
 - Stem[**]: 0.63 ms (221%)

server-descriptors-2015-11/:
 - metrics-lib: 0.682293 ms
 - Stem: 1.11 ms (163%)
 - Stem[**]: 1.03 ms (151%)
 - Zoossh: 0.458566 ms (67%)

extra-infos-2015-11.tar.xz:
 - metrics-lib: 0.274610 ms
 - Stem[**]: 0.46 ms (168%)

extra-infos-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.2155 ms
 - Stem: 0.68 ms (316%)
 - Stem[**]: 0.42 ms (195%)

consensuses-2015-11.tar.xz:
 - metrics-lib: 255.760446 ms
 - Stem[**]: 913.12 ms (357%)

consensuses-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 246.713092 ms
 - Stem: 1393.10 ms (565%)
 - Stem[**]: 876.09 ms (355%)

consensuses-2015-11/:
 - metrics-lib: 283.910864 ms
 - Stem: 1303.53 ms (459%)
 - Stem[**]: 873.45 ms (308%)
 - Zoossh: 83 ms (29%)

microdescs-2015-11.tar.xz[*]:
 - metrics-lib: 0.099397 ms
 - Stem[**]: 0.33 ms (332%)

microdescs-2015-11.tar[*]:
 - metrics-lib: 0.066566 ms
 - Stem: 0.66 ms (991%)
 - Stem[**]: 0.34 ms (511%)

[*] The microdescs* tarballs contain microdesc consensuses and
microdescriptors, but I only cared about the latter; what I did is
extract tarballs, delete microdesc consensuses, and re-create and
re-compress tarballs

[**] Run with Python 3.5.1

Is Python 3 really that much faster than Python 2?  Should we just
omit Python 2 results from this comparison?

All the best,
Karsten
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWmPd6AAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrW2IIAL7KyVxDbLczXjtzgwLxFjzw
s9AjhRILb4cBUwr4N4bFAe6x2rXT5w0dEOweMqjcki7IQ4+/gcjok3PLvT6z6lUW
5pKHppU8OmaZItARvGRNlDxWt4E2SSP597GwTWr7rPwwjRRjXmqNPrWAUzq1eteB
S8os9M2whsEntfUF+aPmZbu2oNzJYdnOL/B139MA72nuo9d6no3CXyTFfvT4a9kV
K8vg1w54yDtyp15+uVGaJjfbQRJdPRmpjzkSntngnvSL098g1Rq7coRARMrIJ4BB
8+WjqtoU5IlnuMS3U/aC/FaXFWLz0vHoXci33ZP+kwmX4GywC1mC/QGbvinlkPk=
=WQF6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-15 Thread Damian Johnson 
Yikes, thanks for getting these Karsten! I don't think we should omit
the earlier results since the python community is still very much
split between 2.7 and 3.x. I'll include both so users know they can
upgrade their interpreter to get a nice little speed boost.

Thanks!


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Karsten Loesing  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 14/01/16 17:22, Damian Johnson wrote:
>> Oh, forgot to talk about compression. You can run the stem script
>> against compressed tarballs but python didn't add lzma support
>> until python 3.3...
>>
>> https://stem.torproject.org/faq.html#how-do-i-read-tar-xz-descriptor-archives
>>
>>  I suppose we could run over bz2 or gz tarballs, or upgrade python.
>> But can't say the compressed benchmark is overly important.
>
> I just ran all the Stem measurements using Python 3, which now
> includes xz tarballs.  The table below contains all results:
>
> server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.334261 ms
>  - Stem[**]: 0.63 ms (188%)
>
> server-descriptors-2015-11.tar:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.28543 ms
>  - Stem: 1.02 ms (357%)
>  - Stem[**]: 0.63 ms (221%)
>
> server-descriptors-2015-11/:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.682293 ms
>  - Stem: 1.11 ms (163%)
>  - Stem[**]: 1.03 ms (151%)
>  - Zoossh: 0.458566 ms (67%)
>
> extra-infos-2015-11.tar.xz:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.274610 ms
>  - Stem[**]: 0.46 ms (168%)
>
> extra-infos-2015-11.tar:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.2155 ms
>  - Stem: 0.68 ms (316%)
>  - Stem[**]: 0.42 ms (195%)
>
> consensuses-2015-11.tar.xz:
>  - metrics-lib: 255.760446 ms
>  - Stem[**]: 913.12 ms (357%)
>
> consensuses-2015-11.tar:
>  - metrics-lib: 246.713092 ms
>  - Stem: 1393.10 ms (565%)
>  - Stem[**]: 876.09 ms (355%)
>
> consensuses-2015-11/:
>  - metrics-lib: 283.910864 ms
>  - Stem: 1303.53 ms (459%)
>  - Stem[**]: 873.45 ms (308%)
>  - Zoossh: 83 ms (29%)
>
> microdescs-2015-11.tar.xz[*]:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.099397 ms
>  - Stem[**]: 0.33 ms (332%)
>
> microdescs-2015-11.tar[*]:
>  - metrics-lib: 0.066566 ms
>  - Stem: 0.66 ms (991%)
>  - Stem[**]: 0.34 ms (511%)
>
> [*] The microdescs* tarballs contain microdesc consensuses and
> microdescriptors, but I only cared about the latter; what I did is
> extract tarballs, delete microdesc consensuses, and re-create and
> re-compress tarballs
>
> [**] Run with Python 3.5.1
>
> Is Python 3 really that much faster than Python 2?  Should we just
> omit Python 2 results from this comparison?
>
> All the best,
> Karsten
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWmPd6AAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrW2IIAL7KyVxDbLczXjtzgwLxFjzw
> s9AjhRILb4cBUwr4N4bFAe6x2rXT5w0dEOweMqjcki7IQ4+/gcjok3PLvT6z6lUW
> 5pKHppU8OmaZItARvGRNlDxWt4E2SSP597GwTWr7rPwwjRRjXmqNPrWAUzq1eteB
> S8os9M2whsEntfUF+aPmZbu2oNzJYdnOL/B139MA72nuo9d6no3CXyTFfvT4a9kV
> K8vg1w54yDtyp15+uVGaJjfbQRJdPRmpjzkSntngnvSL098g1Rq7coRARMrIJ4BB
> 8+WjqtoU5IlnuMS3U/aC/FaXFWLz0vHoXci33ZP+kwmX4GywC1mC/QGbvinlkPk=
> =WQF6
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-14 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 13/01/16 20:42, Damian Johnson wrote:
>> This was Stem commit c01a9cda4e7699c7f4bd642c8e81ed45aab7a29b
>> and Python version 2.7.10.
> 
> Great, thanks! Also what was the metrics-lib and zoossh commits?

metrics-lib: 8767f3e3bb8f6c9aa8cdb4c9fb0e9f2b545a7501
java version "1.7.0_51"

Zoossh: 2380e557e35532fd25870c8fc7a84a3fc951dbfc
go version go1.5.2 darwin/amd64

>> Or should we add these performance tests for metrics-lib, Stem,
>> and Zoossh to their own repository that also comes with scripts
>> to fetch data from CollecTor?  (Not sure if this is a smart thing
>> to do, but I figured I should ask before adding things to the
>> metrics-lib repository.)
> 
> Sinister plan #572 is that I'll add these results and scripts to
> the page we have with the library comparison. Probably tomorrow. If
> you'd care to clean up the metrics-lib examples that would be
> great. Otherwise I'll include what we have and you can send me
> patches later with what you'd like.

Sounds like a good plan.  Thanks for doing this!

Here's one thing I realized when composing this message.  When I
pasted Zoossh results earlier, I compared them to the results for
metrics-lib and Stem processing tarballs.  But Zoossh can only process
extracted tarballs.  I just re-ran metrics-lib and Stem with extracted
tarballs and included all results below:

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz:
 - metrics-lib: 0.334261 ms

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.285430 ms
 - Stem: 1.02 ms (357%)

server-descriptors-2015-11/:
 - metrics-lib: 0.682293 ms
 - Zoossh: 0.458566 ms (67%)
 - Stem: 1.11 ms (163%)

extra-infos-2015-11.tar.xz:
 - metrics-lib: 0.274610 ms

extra-infos-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.215500 ms
 - Stem: 0.68 ms (316%)

consensuses-2015-11.tar.xz:
 - metrics-lib: 255.760446 ms

consensuses-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 246.713092 ms
 - Stem: 1393.10 ms (565%)

consensuses-2015-11/:
 - metrics-lib: 283.910864 ms
 - Stem: 1303.53 ms
 - Zoossh: 83 ms

microdescs-2015-11.tar.xz[*]:
 - metrics-lib: 0.099397 ms

microdescs-2015-11.tar[*]:
 - metrics-lib: 0.066566 ms
 - Stem: 0.66 ms (991%)

[*] The microdescs* tarballs contain microdesc consensuses and
microdescriptors, but I only cared about the latter; what I did is
extract tarballs, delete microdesc consensuses, and re-create and
re-compress tarballs

I'm attaching a slightly updated version of the metrics-lib code.
It's not cleaned up, but it's what I used to perform the measurements
above.

All the best,
Karsten

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWl3cmAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrew8H/1JnOCbZAXD9dBQUIYsZPu//
jngO1Khf2lcggcHcxNMkhZS67KMmdKnyu0ZdjBHGdRNLZbQhhbDf5kQVtdx4xGim
h4+cMgNEWqVp2gvfr/pvF6luns1rXfKREN/uxs9B1zrk5nEqWjAuPWqdgFbqA3Ui
03VOd1inUNZ7fWFwJpvSzb5RuZHusmLAWsDXO/607cJ/Of99QUIU5NWEBwwVTvgl
ATd1+Slo2KIsNSpVPgtIbv345X7kTs2Jvt/ZvJsotQuRzn18d0A2ZayCddpQ896Z
gffIp+xY+19tr1x27bwbDS44Jhb3p1Y1cKqvAUjZXzk8iSecxL+kSn5JCEdl2YY=
=7nr/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
/* Copyright 2016 The Tor Project
 * See LICENSE for licensing information */
package org.torproject.descriptor;

import java.io.File;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.SortedMap;

public class MeasurePerformance {

  /* Check if all necessary files are available and then measure
   * performance of some more or less common use cases. */
  public static void main(String[] args) {
if (!filesAvailable()) {
  return;
}
/*measureListOutdatedRelays(null);
pause();*/
measureAverageAdvertisedBandwidth(new File(resDir, resPaths[0]));
pause();
measureAverageAdvertisedBandwidth(new File(resDir, resPaths[1]));
pause();
measureAverageAdvertisedBandwidth(new File(resDir, resPaths[2]));
pause();
/*measureFractionRelaysExit80ServerDescriptors(null);
pause();
measureSumOfWrittenAndReadBytes(null);
pause();*/
measureCountriesV3Requests(new File(resDir, resPaths[3]));
pause();
measureCountriesV3Requests(new File(resDir, resPaths[4]));
pause();
measureAverageRelaysExit(new File(resDir, resPaths[5]));
pause();
measureAverageRelaysExit(new File(resDir, resPaths[6]));
pause();
measureAverageRelaysExit(new File(resDir, resPaths[7]));
/*pause();
measureVotesByBandwidthAuthorities(null);
pause();
measureExtendedFamilies(null);
pause();*/
measureFractionRelaysExit80Microdescriptors(
new File(resDir, resPaths[8]));
measureFractionRelaysExit80Microdescriptors(
new File(resDir, resPaths[9]));
  }

  private static File resDir = new File("res");
  private static String[] resPaths = new String[] {
"archive/relay-descriptors/server-descriptors/"
+ "server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz",
"archive/relay-descriptors/server-descriptors/"
+ "server-descriptors-2015-11.tar",
"archive/relay-descriptors/server-descriptors/"
+

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-14 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 13/01/16 21:01, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:47:03PM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> Do the Zoossh results there look plausible?
> 
> I'm surprised that descriptor parsing is so slow, but I think the 
> results are plausible, yes.  I should look into it.

Not to worry.  Turns out I compared the wrong numbers and Zoossh is
still the fastest parser in town (see my earlier reply in this thread).

What you could try, though, is extend Zoossh to parse tarballs rather
than directories.  This is more than 2 times faster in metrics-lib,
and it doesn't clutter your hard disk with thousands or millions of
tiny files.

All the best,
Karsten

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWl3eEAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrKUoIALjQi8Ndy5Tu5NcvOmPoyw0H
tfEZST3jgvDddiQFpG8qPsZ47DmdPgA42d7oW7pJFhJMIn8ZhpvxRJb3r2M0eHGr
zarItm7MtPnidtfA1Bf1HYkOyyLArMgd9Ld+yE0GGDRBT/wjljmGo4k2kuoR8K0d
IeE9W2YsNrI1w6ilxedy6xQnnMfh0UrOxLg6wnYUvpkxrMyRbPVbPX9BAzna/mgx
svAYNsu3kDdc0lFTY/88P8xoVy35vyRaqNiuy7wswNGscGTR3bflq6JDXKdMI0HR
bgK0lrmeQrr2Z5qIu5HnyddG3u08hkpZufiv76oKpm+KsbuBBSD0HMLSu0uw5dU=
=z/EC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-14 Thread Damian Johnson 
> What you could try, though, is extend Zoossh to parse tarballs rather
> than directories.  This is more than 2 times faster in metrics-lib,
> and it doesn't clutter your hard disk with thousands or millions of
> tiny files.

For what it's worth processing tarballs rather than flat files made a
huge difference for Stem as well (tempted to say it was a 5x
improvement). Since you care so much about Zoossh's speed this could
be a great way to make it even faster. :)
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-13 Thread Damian Johnson 
> This was Stem commit c01a9cda4e7699c7f4bd642c8e81ed45aab7a29b and
> Python version 2.7.10.

Great, thanks! Also what was the metrics-lib and zoossh commits?

> Or should we add these performance tests for metrics-lib, Stem, and
> Zoossh to their own repository that also comes with scripts to fetch
> data from CollecTor?  (Not sure if this is a smart thing to do, but I
> figured I should ask before adding things to the metrics-lib repository.)

Sinister plan #572 is that I'll add these results and scripts to the
page we have with the library comparison. Probably tomorrow. If you'd
care to clean up the metrics-lib examples that would be great.
Otherwise I'll include what we have and you can send me patches later
with what you'd like.

Cheers! -Damian
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-13 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/01/16 17:19, Damian Johnson wrote:
> Thanks! Yup, those results look reasonable. I was expecting a
> smaller delta with server/extrainfo descriptors and larger one
> with microdescriptors due to the lazy loading but oh well. What
> stem commit and python version was this with?

This was Stem commit c01a9cda4e7699c7f4bd642c8e81ed45aab7a29b and
Python version 2.7.10.

> Any thoughts on when you'll have time to clean up the metrics-lib 
> examples? Happy to add the results to our site when they're ready.

Or should we add these performance tests for metrics-lib, Stem, and
Zoossh to their own repository that also comes with scripts to fetch
data from CollecTor?  (Not sure if this is a smart thing to do, but I
figured I should ask before adding things to the metrics-lib repository.)

All the best,
Karsten
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWlpnzAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrn60IAMQy2RJR4eN66en8wDnOjPNZ
c3xjQfcZg2vTYtUO9f5Uj4Hx4PYbodGxnS6m4r6+xtAnT1PpPzMc7O8bbEJNhAWD
1a9gVUvy4OYPYXsCGY9KlyIbmwCgSyXRj+Kb4C0Levd7xQ7C6Yvku6nWw3OZlJz8
K5t4TKPrU5ScovlxOfKTijytvNKfX16vO0vjC1w+WN5oex4UbGLRbtHLQlf3ZOmz
hlvzWrSd7SdTNMEEpG01iZ8HxqEQLCapbWYg32KzheXW8W1NBTBm0abh1F4jGZbX
UYKKBg5+E2/sxPfvyCACkRnP1ulfENSyt8kvD2qFquxp/cwuHuZC0XtCkKARSII=
=YX00
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-13 Thread Philipp Winter 
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:47:03PM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Do the Zoossh results there look plausible?

I'm surprised that descriptor parsing is so slow, but I think the
results are plausible, yes.  I should look into it.

Thanks,
Philipp
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-13 Thread Philipp Winter 
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Philipp, would you be able to write the Zoossh counterpart for the
> descriptor types supported by it?

I attached a small tool that should do the same thing Damian's script
does for consensuses and server descriptors.  Note, however, that it
cannot processed tar archives.  It expects as input directories that
contain consensuses and server descriptors.

You can compile it with "go build benchmark.go".

Cheers,
Philipp
package main

import (
"fmt"
"log"
"os"
"path/filepath"
"time"

"git.torproject.org/user/phw/zoossh.git"
)

var processedCons int64 = 0
var processedDescs int64 = 0
var totalExits int64 = 0
var totalRelays int64 = 0
var totalBw uint64 = 0

func Min(a uint64, b uint64, c uint64) uint64 {

min := a

if b < min {
min = b
}

if c < min {
min = c
}

return min
}

func ProcessDescriptors(path string, info os.FileInfo, err error) error {

if _, err := os.Stat(path); err != nil {
return err
}

if info.IsDir() {
return nil
}

consensus, err := zoossh.ParseDescriptorFile(path)
if err != nil {
return err
}

if (processedDescs % 100) == 0 {
fmt.Printf(".")
}

for _, getDesc := range consensus.RouterDescriptors {
desc := getDesc()
totalBw += Min(desc.BandwidthAvg, desc.BandwidthBurst, 
desc.BandwidthObs)
processedDescs++
}

return nil
}

func ProcessConsensus(path string, info os.FileInfo, err error) error {

if _, err := os.Stat(path); err != nil {
return err
}

if info.IsDir() {
return nil
}

consensus, err := zoossh.ParseConsensusFile(path)
if err != nil {
return err
}
fmt.Printf(".")

for _, getStatus := range consensus.RouterStatuses {
status := getStatus()
totalRelays++
if status.Flags.Exit == true {
totalExits++
}
}
processedCons++

return nil
}

func main() {

if len(os.Args) != 3 {
log.Fatalf("Usage: %s CONSENSUS_ARCHIVE DESCRIPTOR_ARCHIVE", 
os.Args[0])
}

before := time.Now()
filepath.Walk(os.Args[1], ProcessConsensus)
fmt.Println()
after := time.Now()

duration := after.Sub(before)
fmt.Println("Total time for consensuses:", duration)
fmt.Printf("Time per consensus: %dms\n",
duration.Nanoseconds()/processedCons/int64(100))
fmt.Printf("Processed %d consensuses with %d router status entries.\n",
processedCons, totalRelays)
fmt.Printf("Total exits: %d\n", totalExits)

before = time.Now()
filepath.Walk(os.Args[2], ProcessDescriptors)
fmt.Println()
after = time.Now()

duration = after.Sub(before)
fmt.Println("Total time for descriptors:", duration)
fmt.Printf("Time per descriptor: %dns\n",
duration.Nanoseconds()/processedDescs)
fmt.Printf("Processed %d descriptors.\n", processedDescs)
fmt.Printf("Average advertised bandwidth: %d\n", 
totalBw/uint64(processedDescs))
}
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-13 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 13/01/16 16:28, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> Philipp, would you be able to write the Zoossh counterpart for
>> the descriptor types supported by it?
> 
> I attached a small tool that should do the same thing Damian's
> script does for consensuses and server descriptors.  Note, however,
> that it cannot processed tar archives.  It expects as input
> directories that contain consensuses and server descriptors.
> 
> You can compile it with "go build benchmark.go".

Cool, thanks!  I added the Zoossh results below.

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.285430 ms (100%)
 - Stem: 1.02 ms (357%)
 - Zoossh: 0.458566 ms (161%)

extra-infos-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.215500 ms (100%)
 - Stem: 0.68 ms (316%)

consensuses-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 246.713092 ms (100%)
 - Stem: 1393.10 ms (565%)
 - Zoossh: 83 ms (34%)

microdescs-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.066566 ms (100%)
 - Stem: 0.66 ms (991%)

Do the Zoossh results there look plausible?

All the best,
Karsten

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWln+HAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCruJgIAJbd0mYKE7qYEZgdh1zhN4Bs
bdiLLJqrwY5PEY2OSJ2mZ4nPelgc4vnWU93dihZMfjBSKD9OokbS3+a0x7ErVtt3
s8pPuKKs2blNDliSNsHuK/dQwEjLGZgxtOxtrYDpTL+oMAU/cZ2S3t3joSlX9Dfh
EnXCrVc3pfMyDbANaO2bf8Vz0qP2ps0Gd+JE5XRjwkJtebAXV4UJ5LRH+wedChBa
zpUPLMrBET+sWMzs5vxWRhAbmJcrV/tkZmgBmiuvcuTeu8fc4xejsxKKQx4jhYKR
hVx5sH679MXoS4ODDCC0RUIgB+PFg7/cEBGPSDPGxAvuonEQXwCyatR0Opj9gMc=
=754/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-12 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/01/16 05:38, Damian Johnson wrote:
> Hi Karsten, implemented Stem counterparts of these (see attached).
> On one hand the code is delightfully simple, but on the other 
> measurements I got were quite a bit slower. Curious to see what
> you get when running at the same place you took your measurements.

Cool!  Here's a comparison between metrics-lib and Stem run on the
same system:

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.285430 ms
 - Stem: 1.02 ms (357%)

extra-infos-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.215500 ms
 - Stem: 0.68 ms (316%)

consensuses-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 246.713092 ms
 - Stem: 1393.10 ms (565%)

microdescs-2015-11.tar:
 - metrics-lib: 0.066566 ms
 - Stem: 0.66 ms (991%)

Do these Stem results look plausible?

Philipp, would you be able to write the Zoossh counterpart for the
descriptor types supported by it?  I'm even more curious now how those
numbers compare to metrics-lib and Stem.

All the best,
Karsten
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWlLwCAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCr9y0H/i43rgx14dJXxxzUOnFLgUpm
THfWdWoWZQo1P5mQx5WZctUAjk1OBTGUX+EyVZzwOoLjaZHKXX8Nu14et1kz0CSM
K1qs0bDALgwXpVg5Rm79kIUanm0hcptWAlKkyqAu1X2Qfu/2fVKfCEvrDZJlVoCC
ePuMLLxvRim0fBT4K1aRKRdxwob4HKv90N+4Ib+Llw0CLy8DQFJjKKDpmruxxcuq
62KzWz2Ck2AiJUPr2BYMxFMozyE40lQ38RcP6rbomF2PxqxP2W5pjs9R0jfzcRA5
o28okykuFqaIp82rnuvmUXbYrYvPV/2GAqrsKAj+rHon/xeGDWsYZG/FOzIhZsU=
=soLz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-12 Thread Philipp Winter 
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Philipp, would you be able to write the Zoossh counterpart for the
> descriptor types supported by it?  I'm even more curious now how those
> numbers compare to metrics-lib and Stem.

I'd love to, but I cannot promise when I'll be done with it :(

Cheers,
Philipp
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-07 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/01/16 21:25, Damian Johnson wrote:
> Nice! Few questions...
> 
> * Where are your metrics-lib scripts used for the benchmarks?
> Should be easy for me to write stem counterparts once I know what
> we're running. I'll later be including our demo scripts with the
> benchmarks later so if possible comments would be nice so they're
> good examples for newcomers to our libraries.

I'm planning to clean up this code before committing it to a real
repository, but here's the unclean version in a pastebin:

http://pastebin.com/PEXD09jF

> * Which exact tarballs are you parsing? It would be useful if we
> ran all our benchmarks on the same host with the same data.

I'm using tarballs from CollecTor, except for microdescriptors which
I'm processing as described below.

Agreed about running this on the same host in the future.

> * Please take note somewhere of the metric-lib commit id used
> since I'll want to include that later when we add the results to
> our site.

Good idea.

For now, I think I'll wait for you to write similar benchmarks for
Stem to learn whether I need to write any more for metrics-lib.  And
then I'll clean up things more on my side and commit them somewhere
more serious than pastebin.

> Sorry I didn't get to this for the task exchange. Been focusing on
> Nyx so quite a few things have fallen off my radar.

Sure, no worries at all. Very much looking forward to your results!

All the best,
Karsten


> 
> Cheers! -Damian
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Karsten Loesing
>  wrote: Hi Damian,
> 
> I'm digging out this old thread, because I think it's still
> relevant.
> 
> I started writing some performance evaluations for metrics-lib and
> got some early results.  All examples read a monthly tarball from 
> CollecTor and do something trivial with each contained descriptor
> that requires parsing them.  Here are the average processing times
> by type:
> 
> server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz: 0.334261 ms 
> server-descriptors-2015-11.tar: 0.285430 ms 
> extra-infos-2015-11.tar.xz: 0.274610 ms extra-infos-2015-11.tar:
> 0.215500 ms consensuses-2015-11.tar.xz: 255.760446 ms 
> consensuses-2015-11.tar: 246.713092 ms 
> microdescs-2015-11.tar.xz[*]: 0.099397 ms 
> microdescs-2015-11.tar[*]: 0.066566 ms
> 
> [*] The microdescs* tarballs contain microdesc consensuses and 
> microdescriptors, but I only cared about the latter; what I did is 
> extract tarballs, delete microdesc consensuses, and re-create and 
> re-compress tarballs
> 
> These evaluations were all run on a Core i7 with 2GHz using an SSD
> as storage.
> 
> Any surprises in these results so far?
> 
> Would you want to move forward with the comparison and also
> include Stem?  (And, Philipp, would you want to include Zoossh?)
> 
> All the best, Karsten
> 
> 
> On 01/10/15 09:28, Karsten Loesing wrote:
 Hello Philipp and iwakeh, hello list,
 
 Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk
 about doing a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing
 libraries with respect to capabilities, run-time performance,
 memory usage, etc.
 
 We put together a list of things we'd like to compare and
 tests we'd like to run that we thought we'd want to share
 with you. Damian and I will both be working on these for
 metrics-lib for a short while and then switch to Stem.
 Please feel free to join us in these effort. The result is
 supposed to live on Stem's home page unless somebody comes up
 with a better place.
 
 Thanks!
 
 All the best, Damian and Karsten
 
 
 On 30/09/15 10:57, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> 1. capabilities - supported descriptor types - all the ones
> on CollecTor's formats.html - hidden service descriptors
> (have an agreed @type for that) - getting/producing
> descriptors - reading from file/directory - reading from
> tarballs - reading from CollecTor's .xz-compressed tarballs
> - fetching from CollecTor - downloading from directories
> (authorities or mirrors) - generating (for unit test) -
> recognizing @type annotation - inferencing from file name -
> keeping reading history - user documentation - validation
> (format, crypto, successful sanitization) - packages
> available - how much usage by (large) applications
 
> 2. performance (CPU time, memory overhead) - compression: 
> .xz-compressed tarballs/decompressed tarballs/plain-text - 
> descriptor type: consensus, server descriptor, extra-info 
> descriptor, microdescriptors - validation: on or off
> (allows lazy loading)
 
> 3. tests by descriptor type - @type server-descriptor 1.0
> - Stem's "List Outdated Relays" - average advertised
> bandwidth - fraction of relays that can exit to port 80 -
> @type extra-info 1.0 - sum of all written and read bytes
> from write-history/read-history - number of countries from

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-03 Thread Damian Johnson 
Nice! Few questions...

* Where are your metrics-lib scripts used for the benchmarks? Should
be easy for me to write stem counterparts once I know what we're
running. I'll later be including our demo scripts with the benchmarks
later so if possible comments would be nice so they're good examples
for newcomers to our libraries.

* Which exact tarballs are you parsing? It would be useful if we ran
all our benchmarks on the same host with the same data.

* Please take note somewhere of the metric-lib commit id used since
I'll want to include that later when we add the results to our site.

Sorry I didn't get to this for the task exchange. Been focusing on Nyx
so quite a few things have fallen off my radar.

Cheers! -Damian


On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Karsten Loesing  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Damian,
>
> I'm digging out this old thread, because I think it's still relevant.
>
> I started writing some performance evaluations for metrics-lib and got
> some early results.  All examples read a monthly tarball from
> CollecTor and do something trivial with each contained descriptor that
> requires parsing them.  Here are the average processing times by type:
>
> server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz: 0.334261 ms
> server-descriptors-2015-11.tar: 0.285430 ms
> extra-infos-2015-11.tar.xz: 0.274610 ms
> extra-infos-2015-11.tar: 0.215500 ms
> consensuses-2015-11.tar.xz: 255.760446 ms
> consensuses-2015-11.tar: 246.713092 ms
> microdescs-2015-11.tar.xz[*]: 0.099397 ms
> microdescs-2015-11.tar[*]: 0.066566 ms
>
> [*] The microdescs* tarballs contain microdesc consensuses and
> microdescriptors, but I only cared about the latter; what I did is
> extract tarballs, delete microdesc consensuses, and re-create and
> re-compress tarballs
>
> These evaluations were all run on a Core i7 with 2GHz using an SSD as
> storage.
>
> Any surprises in these results so far?
>
> Would you want to move forward with the comparison and also include
> Stem?  (And, Philipp, would you want to include Zoossh?)
>
> All the best,
> Karsten
>
>
> On 01/10/15 09:28, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> Hello Philipp and iwakeh, hello list,
>>
>> Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk about
>> doing a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing libraries with
>> respect to capabilities, run-time performance, memory usage, etc.
>>
>> We put together a list of things we'd like to compare and tests
>> we'd like to run that we thought we'd want to share with you.
>> Damian and I will both be working on these for metrics-lib for a
>> short while and then switch to Stem.  Please feel free to join us
>> in these effort. The result is supposed to live on Stem's home page
>> unless somebody comes up with a better place.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> All the best, Damian and Karsten
>>
>>
>> On 30/09/15 10:57, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>>> 1. capabilities - supported descriptor types - all the ones on
>>> CollecTor's formats.html - hidden service descriptors (have an
>>> agreed @type for that) - getting/producing descriptors - reading
>>> from file/directory - reading from tarballs - reading from
>>> CollecTor's .xz-compressed tarballs - fetching from CollecTor -
>>> downloading from directories (authorities or mirrors) -
>>> generating (for unit test) - recognizing @type annotation -
>>> inferencing from file name - keeping reading history - user
>>> documentation - validation (format, crypto, successful
>>> sanitization) - packages available - how much usage by (large)
>>> applications
>>
>>> 2. performance (CPU time, memory overhead) - compression:
>>> .xz-compressed tarballs/decompressed tarballs/plain-text -
>>> descriptor type: consensus, server descriptor, extra-info
>>> descriptor, microdescriptors - validation: on or off (allows
>>> lazy loading)
>>
>>> 3. tests by descriptor type - @type server-descriptor 1.0 -
>>> Stem's "List Outdated Relays" - average advertised bandwidth -
>>> fraction of relays that can exit to port 80 - @type extra-info
>>> 1.0 - sum of all written and read bytes from
>>> write-history/read-history - number of countries from which v3
>>> requests were received - @type network-status-consensus-3 -
>>> average number of relays with Exit flag - @type
>>> network-status-vote-3 - Stem's "Votes by Bandwidth Authorities" -
>>> @type dir-key-certificate-3 - @type
>>> network-status-microdesc-consensus-3 1.0 - @type microdescriptor
>>> 1.0 - look at single microdesc cons and microdescs, compile list
>>> of extended families - fraction of relays that can exit to port
>>> 80 - @type network-status-2 1.0 - @type directory 1.0 - @type
>>> bridge-network-status - @type bridge-server-descriptor - @type
>>> bridge-server-descriptor 1.0 - @type bridge-extra-info 1.3 -
>>> @type bridge-pool-assignment - @type tordnsel 1.0 - @type torperf
>>> 1.0
>>
>>> 4. action items - get in touch with Dererk for packaging
>>> metrics-lib for Debian
>>
>>
>>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2016-01-03 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Damian,

I'm digging out this old thread, because I think it's still relevant.

I started writing some performance evaluations for metrics-lib and got
some early results.  All examples read a monthly tarball from
CollecTor and do something trivial with each contained descriptor that
requires parsing them.  Here are the average processing times by type:

server-descriptors-2015-11.tar.xz: 0.334261 ms
server-descriptors-2015-11.tar: 0.285430 ms
extra-infos-2015-11.tar.xz: 0.274610 ms
extra-infos-2015-11.tar: 0.215500 ms
consensuses-2015-11.tar.xz: 255.760446 ms
consensuses-2015-11.tar: 246.713092 ms
microdescs-2015-11.tar.xz[*]: 0.099397 ms
microdescs-2015-11.tar[*]: 0.066566 ms

[*] The microdescs* tarballs contain microdesc consensuses and
microdescriptors, but I only cared about the latter; what I did is
extract tarballs, delete microdesc consensuses, and re-create and
re-compress tarballs

These evaluations were all run on a Core i7 with 2GHz using an SSD as
storage.

Any surprises in these results so far?

Would you want to move forward with the comparison and also include
Stem?  (And, Philipp, would you want to include Zoossh?)

All the best,
Karsten


On 01/10/15 09:28, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Hello Philipp and iwakeh, hello list,
> 
> Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk about
> doing a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing libraries with
> respect to capabilities, run-time performance, memory usage, etc.
> 
> We put together a list of things we'd like to compare and tests
> we'd like to run that we thought we'd want to share with you.
> Damian and I will both be working on these for metrics-lib for a
> short while and then switch to Stem.  Please feel free to join us
> in these effort. The result is supposed to live on Stem's home page
> unless somebody comes up with a better place.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> All the best, Damian and Karsten
> 
> 
> On 30/09/15 10:57, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> 1. capabilities - supported descriptor types - all the ones on 
>> CollecTor's formats.html - hidden service descriptors (have an 
>> agreed @type for that) - getting/producing descriptors - reading 
>> from file/directory - reading from tarballs - reading from 
>> CollecTor's .xz-compressed tarballs - fetching from CollecTor - 
>> downloading from directories (authorities or mirrors) -
>> generating (for unit test) - recognizing @type annotation -
>> inferencing from file name - keeping reading history - user
>> documentation - validation (format, crypto, successful
>> sanitization) - packages available - how much usage by (large)
>> applications
> 
>> 2. performance (CPU time, memory overhead) - compression: 
>> .xz-compressed tarballs/decompressed tarballs/plain-text - 
>> descriptor type: consensus, server descriptor, extra-info 
>> descriptor, microdescriptors - validation: on or off (allows
>> lazy loading)
> 
>> 3. tests by descriptor type - @type server-descriptor 1.0 -
>> Stem's "List Outdated Relays" - average advertised bandwidth -
>> fraction of relays that can exit to port 80 - @type extra-info
>> 1.0 - sum of all written and read bytes from
>> write-history/read-history - number of countries from which v3
>> requests were received - @type network-status-consensus-3 -
>> average number of relays with Exit flag - @type
>> network-status-vote-3 - Stem's "Votes by Bandwidth Authorities" -
>> @type dir-key-certificate-3 - @type 
>> network-status-microdesc-consensus-3 1.0 - @type microdescriptor 
>> 1.0 - look at single microdesc cons and microdescs, compile list 
>> of extended families - fraction of relays that can exit to port
>> 80 - @type network-status-2 1.0 - @type directory 1.0 - @type 
>> bridge-network-status - @type bridge-server-descriptor - @type 
>> bridge-server-descriptor 1.0 - @type bridge-extra-info 1.3 -
>> @type bridge-pool-assignment - @type tordnsel 1.0 - @type torperf
>> 1.0
> 
>> 4. action items - get in touch with Dererk for packaging 
>> metrics-lib for Debian
> 
> 
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWiWC6AAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrFVYH/jrFdEILBsBHT8EBGEeT7IMR
2fojbeA5X8OSFcZlKgLQjy17HEOLdNJwG9jkLYCZ/O1/kcPkYSn69v7YYsO4Ouo0
8z/RsWIBHH5i+mOliWGfXovTRaiNofWhLy9GEmVYRNQOEjcv16155tZSo9ihYz+V
KHIWniThqRe5ASWSYgf9G6C73VVNl9aUUbNL/W9JRjqXfyf9ser6sJJ1T52YnSu8
3+MUuXfWR1H4buiqZc/EK2cxSJD2aGDi6xIVUq7eWB2yNy452LS4m+TMR0XBTonA
ibpl/FoDp77TeV3Pc53drlx05zIYoMB7n5NQlRGUANXoRo2OSY/DjAt50lG/jww=
=pcyw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2015-10-18 Thread Philipp Winter 
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:50:47PM -0700, Damian Johnson wrote:
> > Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk about doing
> > a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing libraries with respect
> > to capabilities, run-time performance, memory usage, etc.
> 
> Hi Karsten, started moving this forward with the easy bit: a table
> comparing capabilities. Mind taking a peek? Philipp, is this accurate
> for Zoossh?
> 
> https://stem.torproject.org/tutorials/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall.html#are-there-any-other-parsing-libraries

The only thing that's wrong is that zoossh can detect types by looking
at @type.

Cheers,
Philipp
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2015-10-18 Thread Damian Johnson 
> Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk about doing
> a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing libraries with respect
> to capabilities, run-time performance, memory usage, etc.

Hi Karsten, started moving this forward with the easy bit: a table
comparing capabilities. Mind taking a peek? Philipp, is this accurate
for Zoossh?

https://stem.torproject.org/tutorials/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall.html#are-there-any-other-parsing-libraries

Cheers! -Damian
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2015-10-18 Thread Damian Johnson 
> The only thing that's wrong is that zoossh can detect types by looking
> at @type.

Thanks! Fix pushed, it'll show up in a few minutes.
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2015-10-18 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 18/10/15 23:50, Damian Johnson wrote:
>> Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk about
>> doing a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing libraries
>> with respect to capabilities, run-time performance, memory usage,
>> etc.
> 
> Hi Karsten, started moving this forward with the easy bit: a table 
> comparing capabilities. Mind taking a peek? Philipp, is this
> accurate for Zoossh?
> 
> https://stem.torproject.org/tutorials/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall.html#are-there-any-other-parsing-libraries

Looks
> 
good for metrics-lib.  Thanks for starting this!

All the best,
Karsten

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWJB2VAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrtEIIALBAR/1X69H6AYgsH8SLs+7r
n/gKxial55MVWLE2SGsgLU2Sla1fUc48cnFhFNa1n5w/Tl4W/PVlp1xe5kbaiGFt
GSsTZC29wiaGVHg7PgnXkyG+dcTsuSw0Uxs30uXNCpVrEjJuU2bPx3GW1MqGZb35
jb6ADn7SgzcOL5ayF8YTWnNtc/iBIQY3muKPMxWJYkVDmjNI4gC9+bvsM8W4HX3i
QwY6sIe5GZb08FGSVptDPqouB2cu9xz1wtURRycyI6WD8exZl4E+30N8h7aQj5bo
Xg+PKiYrqF+nh1Mm97Y6SOQ/rYlKXFyQDuS9WBkslc3kY7SnHVhklEpmc8iDL+4=
=HcMg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Comparing Stem, metrics-lib, and zoossh

2015-10-01 Thread Karsten Loesing 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Philipp and iwakeh, hello list,

Damian and I sat down yesterday at the dev meeting to talk about doing
a comparison of the various descriptor-parsing libraries with respect
to capabilities, run-time performance, memory usage, etc.

We put together a list of things we'd like to compare and tests we'd
like to run that we thought we'd want to share with you.  Damian and I
will both be working on these for metrics-lib for a short while and
then switch to Stem.  Please feel free to join us in these effort.
The result is supposed to live on Stem's home page unless somebody
comes up with a better place.

Thanks!

All the best,
Damian and Karsten


On 30/09/15 10:57, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> 1. capabilities - supported descriptor types - all the ones on
> CollecTor's formats.html - hidden service descriptors (have an
> agreed @type for that) - getting/producing descriptors - reading
> from file/directory - reading from tarballs - reading from
> CollecTor's .xz-compressed tarballs - fetching from CollecTor -
> downloading from directories (authorities or mirrors) - generating
> (for unit test) - recognizing @type annotation - inferencing from
> file name - keeping reading history - user documentation -
> validation (format, crypto, successful sanitization) - packages
> available - how much usage by (large) applications
> 
> 2. performance (CPU time, memory overhead) - compression:
> .xz-compressed tarballs/decompressed tarballs/plain-text -
> descriptor type: consensus, server descriptor, extra-info 
> descriptor, microdescriptors - validation: on or off (allows lazy
> loading)
> 
> 3. tests by descriptor type - @type server-descriptor 1.0 - Stem's
> "List Outdated Relays" - average advertised bandwidth - fraction of
> relays that can exit to port 80 - @type extra-info 1.0 - sum of all
> written and read bytes from write-history/read-history - number of
> countries from which v3 requests were received - @type
> network-status-consensus-3 - average number of relays with Exit
> flag - @type network-status-vote-3 - Stem's "Votes by Bandwidth
> Authorities" - @type dir-key-certificate-3 - @type
> network-status-microdesc-consensus-3 1.0 - @type microdescriptor
> 1.0 - look at single microdesc cons and microdescs, compile list
> of extended families - fraction of relays that can exit to port 80 
> - @type network-status-2 1.0 - @type directory 1.0 - @type
> bridge-network-status - @type bridge-server-descriptor - @type
> bridge-server-descriptor 1.0 - @type bridge-extra-info 1.3 - @type
> bridge-pool-assignment - @type tordnsel 1.0 - @type torperf 1.0
> 
> 4. action items - get in touch with Dererk for packaging
> metrics-lib for Debian
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWDOCYAAoJEJD5dJfVqbCrwAMIAJ0Chlui/Qv5kiGy9WZVkoKU
UsxiK1IGVh/eGrpunzKdWQtVhvv+285Ab0OUB4URTK5mpOE+bKD3vcFy3ziXvpke
xl5X2rZ/MtzJpRrGcAue0+2YZBrmOsGtGbclH9LcnTRgs65AKFMUp/SPf30LS0Pw
l8tg6xUtB7/97qxwNDj08J9Yp/YtWaankE0zuI3py10qa/2RTXBSjZ0JkemLmhxL
zVy2yUirNdC+bq9rNh+qh2LMIIEEVbGX2sHJx4JdbLjrJAyrSPtyFhXaih4jkIz3
TptTymRwX8Peny7zEJkkGojH6FkOW0gwpfaZBd4vkphLUbyupHIt3k9aKS15Je0=
=uGPS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev