are new benchmarks needed?

Charles Kerr charles at transmissionbt.com
Mon Jan 10 14:36:06 CET 2011


> http://data.plan9.de/2dat.t0.png
> http://data.plan9.de/2dat.t1.png

Thank you for running new tests.

It's odd that the results are so different from the April 2010
benchmarks you posted at
http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/libev/2010q2/001044.html . But,
expecting you to track down what caused the change would be "moving
the goalposts." I said I would be satisfied with updated benchmarks,
so I am.

----

> What a load of bull. The benchmark compares against an old version of libev
> as well, there is no "continuing to omit libevent2" because the benchmark
> wasn't updated to newer libev versions either. It's also not "continuing"
> because libevent2 had only been released a few days before your mail.

The rest of this response is only postscript, since the benchmarks
have been updated and that was the whole point of the thread. To
clarify, though: I used the words "continuing to omit"  because Marc
indicated he was in no hurry to update them because he didn't think
they would have changed much. That opinion seems to be confirmed by
today's tests, but at the time seemed greatly at odds with the April
2010 benchmarks.

>> (2) If there are no practical performance difference between libev and
>> libevent, as libev's author says,
>
> If I said that you can surely point out where I said that, because I am
> not aware that I did.

"Effectively, there is now little (practical) performance difference
between libev and libevent, unless one has a really high number of fds
to attend to."
Marc Lehmann, Mon Apr 19 04:17:59 CEST 2010
http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/libev/2010q2/001044.html


> Needless to say, I am a bit pissed about your repeated misstatement of
> my intentions or of what I said. Please don't put words into the mouths
> of other people that they didn't say, especially not when they twist the
> meaning to something rather different.
>
> And I find it hard to understand why you bother to make so much trouble
> for nothing. The way you do it, by implicating me to have said or done
> things I didn't do, is simply inacceptable.

Well, looking back at the thread I agree that I could have been nicer.
However I strongly disagree that I've "put words into the  mouths of
other people" or that I "implicated [Marc] to have said or done things
[Marc] didn't do." I took pains to use direct quotes and am not aware
of any misquoting.

Nevertheless, as I said before this is all just postscript to answer
Marc's claims that I was deceptive or put words in his mouth. It's not
intended as sour grapes. My main contention was that the benchmarks
should be updated, and they have been. I appreciate that.

Charles



More information about the libev mailing list