[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Evergreen & Software Performance Analysis

Wed Feb 27 11:45:27 EST 2013

Kathy,

Are do you want some information like workflows that seem slow?  For
instance, just got a report from a library about specific steps they are
doing to catalogiing where certain individual processes are slow.

Tim

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
> It was brought to my attention that everyone who may have some input for
> this discussion may not have an Evergreen wiki account. In that case,
> please feel free to send an e-mail (to the list, not directly to me)
> identifying any performance issues you believe should be addressed through
> a performance evaluation. I'll be happy to add them to the wiki.
>
> What I'm looking for is:
>
> 1. Any specific paint points you see in performance.
> 2. Any specific questions you think a performance evaluation should answer.
> 3. Any ideas you might already have regarding causes of performance
> problems. In reading through the logs from the "future of the staff client"
> meeting, I noticed several people said they thought it was important to
> bring these ideas together before reaching out to a consultant, and I agree
> that this is an important first step in the process.
>
> I posted just a few of our local issues at
> http://www.evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=dev:testing:performance_issues
> :
>
> STAFF CLIENT:
>
> Memory leaks - is there an inherent problem with the technology used in
> the staff client (xulrunner, Dojo) that is the source of the memory leak
> problem and other performance problems?
> Slow retrieval of patron records
>
> MESSAGING (OPENSRF):
> Staff client batch operations (e.g. updates/deletes from copy buckets)
>
> DATABASE:
> Catalog search - is there a way to optimize searching in the catalog so
> that users get faster results and are able to start re-implementing things
> like search.relevance_adjustment to provide boosts to relevance ranking?
>
> I'm quite sure there are far more pain points out there, so please don't
> feel shy about contributing to the list!
>
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>
> On 2/25/2013 11:44 AM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Having heard no objections to proceeding with finding somebody to do a
> software performance analysis, I have created a page on the wiki at
> http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=dev:testing:performance_issueswhere we can identify the pain points that need further evaluation and add
> any questions that we hope a performance analysis might be able to answer.
>
> I have started the list off with some basic issues/questions that have
> come up in our own systems. During the future of the staff client meeting,
> Dan Scott had mentioned that there might be three points of attack:client,
> opensrf, database.  I thought dividing the list into those three areas
> might be a good way to start.
>
> I'm hoping that all the knowledgeable sys admins out there who have a
> stronger understanding of the system architecture than I do can build this
> list into something that might be a good starting point for any performance
> evaluation, whether it's done by a third party or by somebody in the
> Evergreen community. By identifying the questions we hope a performance
> evaluation might answer, we are also identifying what our expectations are
> before we enter the process. I would want to be clear on our expectations
> before formally talking to any third party so that we can be fully informed
> about whether an evaluation could meet those expectations.
>
> Kathy
>
>
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>
> On 2/20/2013 2:26 PM, Mike Rylander wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>wrote:
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> I wasn't sure if I should add this to the QA discussion, but it seemed
>> worthy of its own thread.
>>
>> During the "future of the staff client" meeting, I advocated for bringing
>> in a consultant to do a software performance analysis for Evergreen to help
>> us identify where the critical bottlenecks are in the system in the hopes
>> that we could then identify the areas that need to be worked on to improve
>> performance. At the time, I didn't have any concrete suggestions on finding
>> a consultant who could take on this project, but I have since done some
>> more investigation and have a couple of leads, the most promising of which
>> is an individual local to Massachusetts who previously worked for many
>> years at Stratus Technologies where he was involved in all levels of
>> performance analysis. He now teaches graduate-level courses on performance
>> evaluation and also does contract work.
>>
>> Now that I actually have concrete leads, I would like to get the ball
>> rolling, provided there is support from the larger community. I'm not quite
>> sure how this might fit in with ESI's planned QA efforts or with the
>> possibility of bringing in a firm like OmniTI as Dan suggested, but my
>> reading into these QA e-mails is that the focus would be on testing new
>> commits.
>>
>
>  I want to clarify something that Dan seems to have assumed incorrectly:
> that anything ESI does is mutually exclusive with bringing in outside
> expertise.  Nobody has any grounds to stop such an effort, and it would
> be ridiculous to argue otherwise, words put into my mouth notwithstanding.
>  The initial focus of an ESI effort will be what exists today, through
> infrastructure, so that what exists tomorrow can then be tested.
>
>  As for how it would fit in, ESI would absorb and internalize any advice
> or direction, just like any other community member, and work within the
> community to incorporate that.
>
>  So, why have ESI involved at all?  Besides the fact that we create a
> significant portion of the code, and that it benefits us as much as anyone
> to have a more stable Evergreen, there is a need for ongoing, active
> leadership in QA.  The fact is that it has not materialized yet, so we're
> looking for a way to make that a maintainable proposition for the
> community's benefit.  That means ongoing, deep integration with both
> developer and user communities.  And that is not something that we can
> expect from OmniTI or any other organization that is not plugged into those
> communities.  Could some other organization step into that role, and
> provide years of ongoing QA support?  Perhaps so, but ESI exists today and
> has the Evergreen expertise needed to avoid long (and costly) ramp-up time.
>
>  The point is this, though, ESI will encourage any effort to improve
> Evergreen, and is willing and able to work in the community, as we always
> do, to further those efforts.
>
> Thanks, Kathy!
>
>  --
> Mike Rylander
>  | Director of Research and Development
>  | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
>  | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
>  | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
>  | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com
>
>
>
>

-- 
Tim Spindler
tjspindler at gmail.com

*P**   Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's
really necessary.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20130227/11e6bce2/attachment.htm>