[nycbug-talk] Lab environment

[Mikel King]

Sunny Dubey wrote:

>On Thursday 20 May 2004 04:00 pm, George wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Conclusions would be something like, NFS runs amazingly faster than
>>SMB, etc on NetBSD 1.5.3 with an Apple iBook g4 as client.
>>    
>>
>
>I think the a single BSD server will outlast the ibook, heh
>
>  
>
>>Very simple, but we can at least draw some useful conclusions.
>>
>>Maybe it's too simple. . .maybe we use three boxes. . .Net, Free, Open,
>>and test multiple protocols on each box.  But then the tweaks and
>>configs may change too much that it would distort the conclusions.  But
>>we should decide on the client side box.
>>    
>>
>
>s#box#boxes
>
>with different implementations and such.  The more heterogeneous clients are 
>the more "real world" the simulated load will be.  ie:  Sambe<->Samba is 
>supposed to be much faster than Samba<->Windows, so clearly there is 
>something more going on.
>
>I can write a super generic bourne script for fbsd/nbsd/obsd and linux.  Not 
>too sure about os-x and I doubt windows can be scripted the way we want.
>
>
>  
>
>>But that angle has to be dealt with too. . .what tweaking and how much?
>>  Every single open source related run in a test lab ends with some
>>party or another complaining (usually legitimately) about custom
>>configs.
>>
>>Maybe the best way to deal with this is to have an email to each
>>project, stating our test parameters, and request their recommended
>>settings, so that no complaining can happen later on. . .
>>    
>>
>
>I think the best way to go about optimizing would be to think like PHB 
>would.  IE: use only the optimizations *officially documented* by the 
>vendor.  Additionally these optimizations can only help the stability pool 
>and must never decrease it.  This way if something were to break, we could 
>go back to the official documention of whatever software and find easily 
>whatever it was that caused our issues.
>
>I don't think optimizations are not cheating in anyway because in any real 
>world usage you wanna be able to get the most out of your money.  
>Additionally quite often various defaults are left to safer-than-safe 
>levels because the software installed has be generic enough to be able to 
>be run on millions of random configurations.
>
>Sunny Dubey
>
>PS:  can this list be setup to default on reply to list.  This way we can 
>all just hit reply and keep chatting.  I find CC'ing the person and the 
>list to be annoying.
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at lists.nycbug.org
>http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>  
>
Agreed however since most admins have limitted time, and time is money, 
unless things hit critical mass tweaking the OS for a few more horse 
power maybe be low on the priority list. Therefore, it would definately 
be advantageous to have the vanilla out of the box performance results, 
and a comparison of the optimization tweaked results. This way a busy 
admin could justify to his/her boss the cost/benefit of them.


-- 
Cheers,
Mikel King
Optimized Computer Solutions, INC
39 West Fourteenth Street
Second Floor
New York, NY 10011
http://www.ocsny.com

+------------------------------------------+
You may like them. You will see. You may
like them in a tree.
http://www.FreeBSD.org
http://www.OpenOffice.org
http://www.Mozilla.org
http://www.MySql.org
+------------------------------------------+
How do you spell cooperation? Pessimists use each other,
but optimists help each other. Collaboration feeds your
spirit, while competition only stokes your ego.
+------------------------------------------+