* [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long
@ 2014-05-05 1:58 Skip Tavakkolian
2014-05-05 2:51 ` Anthony Martin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Skip Tavakkolian @ 2014-05-05 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 271 bytes --]
is anyone else seeing similar results for cmd/pack?
% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 172.505s
this is on an atom (d525 @ 1.8ghz, 4gb). same test on an arm (quad core a9
@ 1.7ghz, 2gb, linux 3.8) takes much less time:
% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 20.872s
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 518 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long
2014-05-05 1:58 [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long Skip Tavakkolian
@ 2014-05-05 2:51 ` Anthony Martin
2014-05-05 5:16 ` lucio
2014-05-05 6:12 ` Skip Tavakkolian
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Martin @ 2014-05-05 2:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com> once said:
> is anyone else seeing similar results for cmd/pack?
>
> % go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 172.505s
>
> this is on an atom (d525 @ 1.8ghz, 4gb). same test on an arm (quad core a9
> @ 1.7ghz, 2gb, linux 3.8) takes much less time:
>
> % go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 20.872s
Your numbers don't look entirely abnormal. That test issues
over a million small writes. (Although it really should be
using bufio).
How is your system set up? Are you getting your fs from
the network? The Plan 9 disk file systems are pretty slow
even when used locally.
Anthony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long
2014-05-05 2:51 ` Anthony Martin
@ 2014-05-05 5:16 ` lucio
2014-05-05 11:56 ` erik quanstrom
2014-05-05 6:12 ` Skip Tavakkolian
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: lucio @ 2014-05-05 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> Your numbers don't look entirely abnormal. That test issues
> over a million small writes. (Although it really should be
> using bufio).
Are you suggesting we ought to change pack? I don't mind doing it if
it's likely to be accepted by the developers. On NetBSD and my slow
Plan 9 network, there are a few places that trip up the tests because
they seemingly take too long, if buffering would speed them up, I
would be a lot more comfortable.
++L
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long
2014-05-05 2:51 ` Anthony Martin
2014-05-05 5:16 ` lucio
@ 2014-05-05 6:12 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2014-05-05 22:44 ` Anthony Martin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Skip Tavakkolian @ 2014-05-05 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]
thanks; i should have checked that. running it on the fossil+venti server
brings it down a bit. still, it's not stellar.
bootes% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 81.480s
bootes% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 79.719s
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org> wrote:
> Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com> once said:
> > is anyone else seeing similar results for cmd/pack?
> >
> > % go test
> > PASS
> > ok cmd/pack 172.505s
> >
> > this is on an atom (d525 @ 1.8ghz, 4gb). same test on an arm (quad core
> a9
> > @ 1.7ghz, 2gb, linux 3.8) takes much less time:
> >
> > % go test
> > PASS
> > ok cmd/pack 20.872s
>
> Your numbers don't look entirely abnormal. That test issues
> over a million small writes. (Although it really should be
> using bufio).
>
> How is your system set up? Are you getting your fs from
> the network? The Plan 9 disk file systems are pretty slow
> even when used locally.
>
> Anthony
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1822 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long
2014-05-05 5:16 ` lucio
@ 2014-05-05 11:56 ` erik quanstrom
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2014-05-05 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon May 5 01:19:06 EDT 2014, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > Your numbers don't look entirely abnormal. That test issues
> > over a million small writes. (Although it really should be
> > using bufio).
>
> Are you suggesting we ought to change pack? I don't mind doing it if
> it's likely to be accepted by the developers. On NetBSD and my slow
> Plan 9 network, there are a few places that trip up the tests because
> they seemingly take too long, if buffering would speed them up, I
> would be a lot more comfortable.
yes. a million small writes in a test like that is unreasonable.
- erik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long
2014-05-05 6:12 ` Skip Tavakkolian
@ 2014-05-05 22:44 ` Anthony Martin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Martin @ 2014-05-05 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com> once said:
> thanks; i should have checked that. running it on the fossil+venti server
> brings it down a bit. still, it's not stellar.
>
> bootes% go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 81.480s
> bootes% go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 79.719s
Here's a CL to buffer the writes in TestLargeDefs:
https://codereview.appspot.com/95040044
Cheers,
Anthony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-05 22:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-05 1:58 [9fans] Go 1.3b1 cmd/pack test takes too long Skip Tavakkolian
2014-05-05 2:51 ` Anthony Martin
2014-05-05 5:16 ` lucio
2014-05-05 11:56 ` erik quanstrom
2014-05-05 6:12 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2014-05-05 22:44 ` Anthony Martin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).