Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Measure IO time spend when running the unit tests #2215

Closed
lfdversluis opened this issue May 18, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Measure IO time spend when running the unit tests #2215

lfdversluis opened this issue May 18, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@lfdversluis
Copy link

lfdversluis commented May 18, 2016

To gain insight into the IO time consumed by tribler, I will profile the functions with yappi in databamanagers such as sqlitecacbedb to measure the time spent on IO time when running the unit tests.

Output:

Disk type Runtime tests IO Time
SSD
SATA
@lfdversluis
Copy link
Author

lfdversluis commented Jun 1, 2016

Small update: ran the unit tests a while ago and measured the sqlitecachedb class of Tribler running the Tribler unit tests (so dispersy also runs but is not captured. The results indicated around 1-2% of the time was spend on IO, not significant at all thus.

Dispersy has a lot more IO and therefore impact. Running the Dispersy unit tests may give better insight, but won't simulate real behavior.

@lfdversluis
Copy link
Author

Running only the dispersy unit tests and profile Dispersy shows similar results. Here is a screenshot when only filtering on database items:

% of time spend in DB functions

The .incl is the percentage of time spent in that function, which amounts to ~4%. So the unit tests do not perform much database activity (as somewhat expected).
I think an idle run of tribler communities (allchannel, search etc.) provide better insight of actual behavior.

@ichorid
Copy link
Contributor

ichorid commented Jul 18, 2020

RIP Dispersy

@ichorid ichorid closed this as completed Jul 18, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants