[Swift-devel] Re: waitpid mini-benchmark

[Mihael Hategan]

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 17:01 -0600, Michael Wilde wrote:
> Agreed. That was the purpose of measuring it.

And it's how things are properly done. I'm not complaining.

>  Probably should make some easy way to pass command line options to the worker.
> 
> I think we felt all along that the current logic was OK for workersPerNode <16 or so.
> 
> The concern was only related to running workersPerNode much higher, like O(100s), which would only be done for experiments (what we've been calling "over-clocking the nodes" with sleep jobs).  Ie, to use one rack of the BG/P to simulate the client load of 40 racks.
> 
> So I agree - this task is off the list.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > That's 0.3ms for 100 jobs? If yes, I don't think we should worry about
> > it beyond making sure that we don't poll very often (e.g. more than 10
> > times/s).
> > 
> > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 15:34 -0600, Justin M Wozniak wrote:
> > > Just posted the results of a Perl waitpid() mini-benchmark:
> > >
> > > http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/wiki/bin/view/SWFT/MiniBenchmarks
> > >
>