On 09/05/2013 05:02 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 16:49 +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
>> On 09/05/2013 03:04 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 09:40 +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
>>>> I tried to find out why our client scripts are so slow and I got quite
>>>> surprising results.
>>>>
>>>> With default lmishell and https:// through loopback, I can get ~5-10
>>>> complete requests+responses/sec.
>>>>
>>>> Bottleneck are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) lmishell - it did some unnecessary queries and it was promptly fixed
>>>> (http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/817/).
>>>>
>>>> 2) lmishell - it creates nice Python objects for everything and it takes
>>>> non-trivial amount of time (and memory), so I did my performance tests
>>>> with native pywbem. There is not much we can do about it, I can only
>>>> suggest to use lmishell for tasks, where performance is not that important.
>>> Jan, can you give us at least a rough estimate of lmishell performance?
>>> Are we talking about a factor of 2 performance difference? Factor of 10?
>>> Factor of 100?
>>
>> pywbem is roughly 2x faster than lmishell
> OK. Not good but not as bad as it sounded.
Well, it is a wrapper around pywbem, so lmishell won't be as fast as
pywbem itself. Lot's of CIM classes are being wrapped so it looks more
natural (object model) in the shell.
>>
>>>> 3) sblim-cmpi-base, it's really badly written and forks *a lot* for each
>>>> request it gets, e.g. they compute amount of swap by calling
>>>> system("cat /proc/swaps | awk '{print $3;}' | sed 1d");
>>>>
>>> Ouch! How common are the really bad operations? Once per session, every
>>> call, depends on what you are doing?
>>
>> It depends. Usually it influences only queries to Linux_ComputerSystem,
>> Linux_OperatingSystem and Linux_UnixProcess, but as almost everything
>> in CIM has association to Linux_ComputerSystem, it may negatively impact
>> also other CIM requests to storage or account or network.
>>
>> We need sblim-cmpi-base only to provide Linux_ComputerSystem object that
>> represent the actual managed system. I checked that Pegasus provides
>> PG_ComputerSystem, which we can use for the same purpose, we just need
>> to add some config files to our providers.
> Hmmm... Should we do our own implementation of Linux_ComputerSystem in
> OpenLMI?
>>
>> Jan
>> _______________________________________________
>> openlmi-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openlmi-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel
>
--
Peter Hatina
ENG Server Experience, System Management
Red Hat Czech, Brno
_______________________________________________
openlmi-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel
