[Opensim-dev] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Michael Emory Cerquoni
nebadon2025 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 17:52:41 UTC 2015
Personally i think we should have left the fudge factor stats alone and
introduced new non multiplied stats. Forcing everyone to change because one
single project has a goal is not great. If the projects goal is to do back
end analysis who cares what we send to the viewer.
On Nov 9, 2015 9:48 AM, "Melanie" <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:
> Viewers WILL have to change but something like the "Lag Meter" does
> depend on some way of generating a normalized value.
>
> This can either be done by normalizing to a standard frame of
> reference, most often 0.0 .. 1.0 is used for this, or normalizing to
> a known value, e.g. 55 fps.
>
> In the absence of a normalized value, viewers would not be able to
> calculate the lag meter unless the stats packet also contains a
> value telling the viewer what "normal" is. This is currently not the
> case.
>
> With sim stats being a UDP packet, we really can't add fields easily
> without breaking with the SL standard and all viewers strive to not
> only work in OpenSim but also in SL.
>
> One could possibly add the "normal" value to the SimulatorFeatures
> cap, since it is not expected that that value would or could change
> while clients are logged in. That still would require viewers to
> change and viewers are slow to change.
>
> Sadly, things required only by OpenSim are incorporated much less
> speedily than things required for continued SL compatibility. We
> should therefore strive to provide what is needed for the viewers to
> adapt but some of us are not in a position to leave the current
> users out in the rain.
>
> - Melanie
>
> On 09/11/2015 18:40, Terry Ford wrote:
> > DigiWorldz and Great Canadian Grid are running the newer code with stats
> > reporting 11fps without issue.
> > When we first made the change, we let everyone know and we've never yet
> > had any complaints about it.
> > I've not seen any issues regarding the change on my end so far.
> >
> > I personally prefer the corrected stats and I think as long as everyone
> > is made aware of the changes and the reasons, I don't think there would
> > be any issues.
> >
> > I am a fan of the Architect Frank Lloyd Wright and I remember reading a
> > story about him once...
> > Someone had complained to him that his design on one of his builds was
> > very poor and it was leaking water each time it rained... his reply...
> > grab a bucket and catch the water.
> > While his build looked awesome, it had an obvious flaw, but instead of
> > addressing it, he indicated using a bucket to catch the water would fix
> > the issue.
> > Isn't that what we are essentially doing here... grabbing buckets?
> > I personally prefer a roof which doesn't leak.
> >
> > ~Terry
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/9/2015 12:31 PM, Zadark Portal wrote:
> >> +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
> >> <mailto: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 <tel:%28407%29%20242-0209>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
> >> <mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org>
> >> [mailto: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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto:melanie at t-data.com> <
> >> Caution-mailto:melanie at t-data.com <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
> >> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org> <
> >> Caution-mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> >> <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
> >> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org> <
> >> Caution-mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> >> <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 <mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20151109/31d4ef6e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list