4 ms·
Why would the evaluation charts look the way they do? https://github.com/fastos/fastsocket#online-evaluation https://github.com/fastos/fastsocket#online-evalua
by crazydoggers 12y ago
Why would the evaluation charts look the way they do?
https://github.com/fastos/fastsocket#online-evaluation https://github.com/fastos/fastsocket#online-evaluation
The "before and after" CPU series have nearly the same exact fit. If the data was from separate 24 hour periods, wouldn't you expect the graphs to look different? I recognize that with a large service, you'd get repetitive load patterns, but the similarity here look a little extreme.
- sandstrom 12y agoI'm guessing here, but it could be two machines, load-balanced. One running with the patch and the other without it.
- desdiv 12y agoI agree; it's probably just a language barrier instead of something nefarious. In the figure below, it is the CPU utilization of a 8-core servers within 24 hours. Author probably meant to write "two 8-core servers".
- teraflop 12y agoI find the first graph peculiar on its own. Supposedly, each line is the load on one of 8 cores on the same machine. Why would some cores experience heavier load than others, very consistently, over the course of a day? I've never seen a workload exhibit that kind of long-term, core-level affinity on Linux.
- wmf 12y agoThis sounds like RSS or flow director gone horribly wrong.
- yxhuvud 12y agoWell, the obvious reason for such a graph is that the network load balancing between several waiting worker processes isn't symmetrical.
- teraflop 12y agoEven if that was the case, there isn't normally a stable mapping between processes and physical cores. There would have to be something within the kernel itself that gives higher priority to some cores than others. Not saying that's impossible, but I've worked on machines with more than 8 cores and never seen it happen.