[Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS)

[dz]

The issue is promoting accurate reporting of basic performance measurement
statistics.  ( something that has  not  achieved  nearly enough serious
attention )

Significant money and manpower is currently being directed at efforts to
improve simulator performance.
It is a simple fact that the continued funding of these efforts  relies on
documenting the ACTUAL improvement  against the  ACTUAL original
performance characteristics.
It is impossible to justify these efforts  when the reported numbers  are
 "made up"  and  THAT fact is not documented except in some obscure comment
 left behind in the source code.

It is unfortunate that the original decision to include a  "Fudge factor
multiplier" has created a pool of  mis-informed  users ( including myself
and  the  viewer developers   ) .
This mistake was complicated  by the fact that until very recently there
was a philosophical divide that prevented  OpenSim and viewer developers
from cooperating on issues like these.
This decision to "play pretend" with performance stats effectively damaged
the reporting credibility of everyone  who published  these inaccurate
 results, It also created  a rift between the OpenSim and viewer developers
 over the decision to NOT discuss  the impact  of  implementing the change.
  The fact is,  there are  numerous places in the OpenSim framework  where
numbers  are  "made up"  just so that  a number appears in performance
reports.  That an effort is being made to correct those  sources of
 mis-information should be welcomed.

It seems to me that the decisions  made by core  should be made in favor of
 supporting the ongoing efforts  to accurately document and improve
simulator performance.
Justin realized this and lead many of the efforts  to add some measurement
metrics.    Even  with those efforts, we still cannot  measure  basic
 statistics like Events per Second sent to the script engine, or tie those
events to whatever script is handling them.  This makes  identifying the
scripts  ACTUALLY responsible for "lagging" a region impossible using the
traditional  TOP SCRIPTS report in region manager window.

I would  agree that a simple solution might be to allow grid managers  to
add back the Fudge Factor to appease their  vocal users, but  would
disagree that the PROPER decision  should be to continue to report
inaccurate results.  It would be  just as easy  to implement a  multiplier
in the  viewer code "Lag Meter",  This  would also allow the accurate
reporting of  statistics in the Advanced Statistics window  and
 administrative reporting.  I believe it was also one of the suggested
resolutions put forth by the viewer developers... It should be clear to
anyone who has spent time in world  that the "lag meter" is incorrect...
You can walk, build, chat  and TP with the same  level of sim performance
as you could  before the  numbers were changed.  We've overlooked the fact
that viewers have behaved  differently  in OpenSim and  "that other grid"
 for years.   Why is it  "all of a sudden"  CRITICAL  that this one  viewer
feature  HAS to be the same?   In these days  when  core developers  are
releasing  viewers, I cannot understand the urgency of accommodating a
minor feature of  one viewer whose developers have already demonstrated a
willingness to work with OpenSim to tailor a configuration to meet our
needs.



On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:

> The issue here is the so-called "lag meter". Since removal of the
> multiplier, this reports all opensim regions as laggy, without
> exception. Users' trust in the "lag meter" is damaging OpenSim
> reputation. This is not a value that is merely for display; the
> viewer uses this value for computations that are then used to
> "judge" a sim to be "laggy" if it's below 35 or so fps. OpenSim now
> always reports a lesser value. This is damaging and needs to be made
> configurable and by default match the viewer's expectations.
>
> - Melanie
>
> On 07/11/2015 16:38, Seth Nygard wrote:
> > While I understand the arguments surrounding the original decision to
> > report values closely matching "the other grid", IMHO doing so created
> > an incorrect understanding in many users' minds of how things work
> > and/or behave.  We are not that other grid and should never pretend to
> > be.  Had figures been reported correctly in the beginning then there
> > would be no confusion now surrounding this subject.  However avoiding
> > confusion is a poor reason to roll back and once again report the
> > artificially inflated values.   It is better to simply educate and make
> > it clear that the value of 11fps is indeed the correct value to expect,
> > and is in fact the true value things always have ran at despite what any
> > inflated reported value said.
> >
> > It is true that many scripts and tools have already been written to use
> > the inflated values but they can all be changed with relative ease.  The
> > viewers already have many aspects that are different for Open Simulator
> > so they can be changed easily as well for new versions also with
> > relative ease.  All we need to do as a community is establish what the
> > correct and expected values are and then document and communicate them.
> >
> > As a user, scripter, tool developer, and grid manager, I for one want to
> > see true and accurate values for any and all metrics regardless of where
> > they are shown or how they may be used.  I therefore am firmly against
> > rolling back to any older artificially inflated values.
> >
> > Regards
> > -Seth
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20151107/563a307f/attachment.html>