[Opensim-dev] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Glenn Martin
gamucf at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 18:11:01 UTC 2015
It would seem to me that correctness should be driving principle and not the size of the group that may need to make some effort.
Glenn
Note: Sent from my cell phone. The opinions and thoughts in this email are my own and do not reflect those of any other person or organization.
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:
>
> What we as core need to consider is that here the needs of the few
> people doing research cannot outweigh the needs of the many who want
> the viewer to function as expected. Therefore the minority who want
> to do research should be the ones who change a setting, not the
> majority interested in a working lag meter.
>
> I have made several suggestions how it may be possinle to transit
> gracefully and without breaking things; alas, they were all ignored
> in favor of principle thumping.
>
> - Melanie
>
>> On 09/11/2015 19:00, Terry Ford wrote:
>> I think for sake of accuracy we should leave it by default to report
>> correctly.
>> For those who do not want the accurate results and prefer to use the
>> multiplied values, give them an option in the ini file to set
>> StatsFudgeFactorOn = true or something similar.
>> Doing this would satisfy both sides without any further discussion and
>> would then allow the grid/region operator the option to run it they way
>> they prefer as it should be.
>>
>> ~Terry
>>
>>> On 11/9/2015 12:52 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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>
>>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>>> [mailto: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>
>>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>>> <mailto:melanie at t-data.com <mailto:melanie at t-data.com>> <
>>>>> Caution-mailto:melanie at t-data.com
>>> <mailto:melanie at t-data.com> <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>
>>>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>> <
>>>>> Caution-mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
>>>>> <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>
>>>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>> <
>>>>> Caution-mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
>>>>> <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>
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
>>>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <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
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list