On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 11:17 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:56 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > What about it? Also those numbers are pretty old at this > point. I was > > thinking disable rootwrap and run full parallel tempest > against it. > > > I think that is a little overkill for what we're trying to do > here. We > are specifically talking about combining many utils.execute() > calls into > a single one. I think it's pretty obvious that the latter will > be better > performing than the first, unless you think that rootwrap has > no > performance overhead at all? > > > mocking out rootwrap with straight sudo, is a very quick way to > approximate the performance benefit of combining many utlils.execute() > calls together (at least rootwrap wise). Also it would tell us how > much of the problem is rootwrap induced and how much is other.
Yes, I understand that, which is what the article I linked earlier showed? % time sudo ip link >/dev/null sudo ip link > /dev/null 0.00s user 0.00s system 43% cpu 0.009 total % sudo time quantum-rootwrap /etc/quantum/rootwrap.conf ip link > /dev/null quantum-rootwrap /etc/quantum/rootwrap.conf ip link > /dev/null 0.04s user 0.02s system 87% cpu 0.059 total A very tiny, non-scientific simple indication that rootwrap is around 6 times slower than a simple sudo call. Best, -jay _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
