[erlang-questions] Arch Linux patches?

[Aaron France]

Are they both using the exact same commit?

On 01/11/13 11:18, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
> I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
>
> Trying with Cowboy's hello_world package, the dumbest benchmark you 
> can do. Using siege for this, using the default conf file except 
> verbose set to false.
>
> To compile the example:
>
> % make
> % ./_rel/bin/hello_world_example console
>
> You will have to recompile it when switching Erlang installs of 
> course, as it's a release and the VM files are copied.
>
> Pacman install:
>
> % erl
> Erlang R16B02 (erts-5.10.3) [source] [64-bit] [smp:4:4] 
> [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
> ...
> % siege -b -c 100 -t 5s http://127.0.0.1:8080
> ** SIEGE 3.0.5
> ** Preparing 100 concurrent users for battle.
> The server is now under siege...
> Lifting the server siege...      done.
>
> Transactions:              186841 hits
> Availability:              100.00 %
> Elapsed time:               14.41 secs
> Data transferred:            2.14 MB
> Response time:                0.01 secs
> Transaction rate:        12966.07 trans/sec
> Throughput:                0.15 MB/sec
> Concurrency:               99.52
> Successful transactions:      186841
> Failed transactions:               0
> Longest transaction:            0.06
> Shortest transaction:            0.00
>
> Kerl install (no option, just build, install, activate, and of course 
> example rebuilt from scratch):
>
> % erl
> Erlang R16B02 (erts-5.10.3) [source] [64-bit] [smp:4:4] 
> [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
> ...
> % siege -b -c 100 -t 5s http://127.0.0.1:8080
> ** SIEGE 3.0.5
> ** Preparing 100 concurrent users for battle.
> The server is now under siege...
> Lifting the server siege...      done.
>
> Transactions:              121051 hits
> Availability:              100.00 %
> Elapsed time:               14.37 secs
> Data transferred:            1.39 MB
> Response time:                0.01 secs
> Transaction rate:         8423.87 trans/sec
> Throughput:                0.10 MB/sec
> Concurrency:               99.65
> Successful transactions:      121051
> Failed transactions:               0
> Longest transaction:            0.04
> Shortest transaction:            0.00
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.
>
> On 11/01/2013 10:28 AM, Aaron France wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd hate to sound like a party-pooper but I'm very much inclined to say
>> that this endeavour is not a very fruitful one.
>>
>> Arch essentially just packages upstream. It's quite likely any
>> performance gains you see are simply factors mainly a newer kernel and
>> more up-to-date packages.
>>
>> That said, I'll happily entertain the idea that Arch is somehow a
>> performance distro.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> On 01/11/13 06:07, Dmitry Kolesnikov wrote:
>>> What are test cases you run to validate performance? And What was 
>>> environment?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Dmitry >-|-|-*>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 31.10.2013, at 23.22, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know the Makefile doesn't seem to do anything but last I checked 
>>>> (been a while) I had better performance with the precompiled 
>>>> version compared to compiling with kerl (I'm not sure if I tried 
>>>> with manual compilation).
>>>>
>>>> I'll check again tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2013 10:04 PM, Aaron France wrote:
>>>>> Demonstrably false.
>>>>>
>>>>> ArchLinux uses https://gist.github.com/AeroNotix/7257133 this to 
>>>>> build
>>>>> it's package, no patches, no wicked switches, just a plain makefile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Olivier Boudeville
>>>>> <olivier.boudeville@REDACTED 
>>>>> <mailto:olivier.boudeville@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>      I may be wrong but I think that, some time ago, someone (maybe
>>>>>      Loïc?) mentioned incidentally in this mailing list that the Arch
>>>>>      Linux version of Erlang (obtained through pacman) was 
>>>>> reported to
>>>>>      be, at least in some cases, significantly more efficient than 
>>>>> the
>>>>>      stock, official version (the trouble is that I can't find that
>>>>>      message from the list archives).
>>>>>
>>>>>      I was wondering if it had been confirmed, and, if yes, if 
>>>>> there were
>>>>>      some patches sent upstream by the Arch maintainers that could be
>>>>>      fruitfully applied to the official sources?
>>>>>
>>>>>      Thanks for any information!
>>>>>
>>>>>      Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>      Olivier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      _________________________________________________
>>>>>      erlang-questions mailing list
>>>>>      erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>>>>      http://erlang.org/mailman/__listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>>> <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Loïc Hoguin
>>>> Erlang Cowboy
>>>> Nine Nines
>>>> http://ninenines.eu
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>