[Opensim-dev] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Zadark Portal
zadarkportal at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 17:31:13 UTC 2015
+1 dz
I cannot add to the well informed technical reasonings already contributed.
But, the suggested amendment is purely cosmetic. I fail to understand why
grid operators are persistently unable to portray the importance of
accurate measurements to their clients.
Of equal concern is perpetuating a culture where non evidence based
observations prevail within the user community only to be dismissed by
equally subjective reasoning.
+1 dz (again)
Z
On 9 November 2015 at 16:37, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
douglas.maxwell3.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> +1 dz
>
> I'm not trying to start a flame war, so pls take these comments as my own
> opinion.
>
> To be honest, I don't understand how the counter-argument to accurate
> reporting could possibly be taken seriously. We have done some intense
> troubleshooting on the OpenSimulator to try to find where instabilities and
> performance enhancements can make most sense. Pandering to the users by
> artificially inflating the numbers does no one any good and is quite
> frankly,
> weak sauce. I'm sorry the lag meters don't work anymore, but that is the
> consequence of improperly reporting the stats in the first place. The
> correct
> fix here isn't to re-break stats reporting.
>
> Secondly, I don't understand how the Devs plan(!) to address the three
> major
> components of the CORE that need work to improve stability and scalability.
> We (MOSES) are testing the new PhysX addition and could not do our jobs
> without proper stats reporting. In fact, months of work (and money) was
> wasted
> last year when we attempted to address physics issues and profiling only to
> find out we couldn't trust the data we were collecting!
>
> Our next work will involve addressing the client manager issues and will
> hopefully yield a workable architecture to allow dozens of people to log in
> simultaneously without lag or impact on the rest of the simulator. Again,
> can't do this without proper stats reporting.
>
> Think of this as a MacOSX moment. Might break some old things, but in the
> end
> you will be better for it.
>
> v/r -doug
>
> Douglas Maxwell, Ph.D.
> Science and Technology Manager
> Virtual World Strategic Applications
> U.S. Army Research Lab
> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
> (c) (407) 242-0209
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
> [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of dz
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:54 PM
> To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys Frames
> per
> Second (FPS)
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained
> within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
> browser.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> 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 <
> Caution-mailto: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 <
> Caution-mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org >
> > Caution-
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev <
> Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org < Caution-mailto:
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> >
> Caution-
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev <
> Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >
>
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151109/0943c8a1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list