On 03:21 am, gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:08 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
E.g. I need latency histograms, but this seems unsupported (benchmark
results can
only have avg/min/max/stddev). For me, this isn't "nice to have", but
essential.
Throughput is one thing. Constistent low latency a completely
different. The latter is
much much harder.
Codespeed is terrible. But this is not one of the ways in which it is
terrible. Codespeed doesn't care if you label your measurement
"latency". I think you've just noticed that what the existing
benchmarks measure is mostly (entirely?) throughput. If you wanted to
write a latency benchmark, I don't think anything's stopping you.
I believe Tobias was not saying "codespeed can't have a measurement
called 'latency'" but rather "codespeed can't do histograms of
measurements, which we need for measurement of latency and you don't
need for measurement of throughput". Is that accurate? I don't know
if there's a histogram feature hidden in the UI somewhere.
It would be nice to at least try a little bit to contribute things
(like a histogram feature) to codespeed before charging off in a
completely different direction.
I wasn't suggesting it would be a good idea to contribute to codespeed.
I think codespeed should be thrown in the trash. It was a great
demonstration of a concept and we should thank it for that. However, as
the basis of future development - no, it's an awful piece of
unmaintained software.
I was just trying to say that work towards replacing it should learn
what it can from codespeed to try to avoid creating another piece of
awful, ultimately unmaintained software.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
