Asher, I don't know the actual perf statistics just yet. With the API this
has to be a balance - I would want more "slower" calls than tons of very
fast calls - as that consumes much more bandwidth and resources (consider
getting all items one item at a time - very quick, but very inefficient).


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Asher Feldman <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > API is fairly complex to meassure and performance target. If a bot
> requests
> > 5000 pages in one call, together with all links & categories, it might
> take
> > a very long time (seconds if not tens of seconds). Comparing that to
> > another api request that gets an HTML section of a page, which takes a
> > fraction of a second (especially when comming from cache) is not very
> > useful.
> >
>
> This is true, and I think we'd want to look at a metric like 99th
> percentile latency.  There's room for corner cases taking much longer, but
> they really have to be corner cases.  Standards also have to be flexible,
> with different acceptable ranges for different uses.  Yet if 30% of
> requests for an api method to fetch pages took tens of seconds, we'd likely
> have to disable it entirely until its use or the number of pages per
> request could be limited.
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Peter Gehres <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > From where would you propose measuring these data points?  Obviously
> > > network latency will have a great impact on some of the metrics and a
> > > consistent location would help to define the pass/fail of each test. I
> do
> > > think another benchmark Ops "features" would be a set of
> > > latency-to-datacenter values, but I know that is a much harder taks.
> > Thanks
> > > for putting this together.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Asher Feldman <[email protected]
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to push for a codified set of minimum performance standards
> > that
> > > > new mediawiki features must meet before they can be deployed to
> larger
> > > > wikimedia sites such as English Wikipedia, or be considered complete.
> > > >
> > > > These would look like (numbers pulled out of a hat, not actual
> > > > suggestions):
> > > >
> > > > - p999 (long tail) full page request latency of 2000ms
> > > > - p99 page request latency of 800ms
> > > > - p90 page request latency of 150ms
> > > > - p99 banner request latency of 80ms
> > > > - p90 banner request latency of 40ms
> > > > - p99 db query latency of 250ms
> > > > - p90 db query latency of 50ms
> > > > - 1000 write requests/sec (if applicable; writes operations must be
> > free
> > > > from concurrency issues)
> > > > - guidelines about degrading gracefully
> > > > - specific limits on total resource consumption across the stack per
> > > > request
> > > > - etc..
> > > >
> > > > Right now, varying amounts of effort are made to highlight potential
> > > > performance bottlenecks in code review, and engineers are encouraged
> to
> > > > profile and optimize their own code.  But beyond "is the site still
> up
> > > for
> > > > everyone / are users complaining on the village pump / am I ranting
> in
> > > > irc", we've offered no guidelines as to what sort of request latency
> is
> > > > reasonable or acceptable.  If a new feature (like aftv5, or flow)
> turns
> > > out
> > > > not to meet perf standards after deployment, that would be a high
> > > priority
> > > > bug and the feature may be disabled depending on the impact, or if
> not
> > > > addressed in a reasonable time frame.  Obviously standards like this
> > > can't
> > > > be applied to certain existing parts of mediawiki, but systems other
> > than
> > > > the parser or preprocessor that don't meet new standards should at
> > least
> > > be
> > > > prioritized for improvement.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Asher
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to