3 ms·
The y-axis on these graphs are suspect, if not a smoking gun. E.g. memory usage "before" ranged from 0-6GB, and "after" ranged from 0-20GB (!); eyeballing it, "
by infogulch 5y ago
The y-axis on these graphs are suspect, if not a smoking gun. E.g. memory usage "before" ranged from 0-6GB, and "after" ranged from 0-20GB (!); eyeballing it, "after" might still be lower, but the y-axis shenanigans doesn't give me much confidence.
- tizoc 5y agoFrom the article: > Please note that the large spike in the TezEdge v1.15 RAM graph is caused by the update to protocol 011 Hangzhou. This included a major restructuring of the context tree, which is a very expensive operation. While the new representation of the context tree is better, it takes a while to migrate the past version’s tree to the new one. The difference in range is caused by that spike (the "before" screenshot is from a node that has not reached that point). Edit: you can also see the actual usage in the tooltip (and before the spike and protocol switch, the memory usage for the TezEdge one was even lower)
- nybble41 5y agoIf you look at the current numbers in the upper-right corner of the graph, validator RAM use went from 3816 MB to 2956 MB, a reduction of ~860 MB. The y-axis was selected by the tool based on the data in each series, and the second graph happens to include a spike above 10 GB caused by protocol migration; I doubt the author was being deliberately manipulative. (I do agree that it would have been better to present the data without that spike for a closer comparison.)