On 10 Jul 2015, at 09:47 , Cory Pruce corypruce@gmail.com wrote:
Signed PGP part
Well, you could test my latest branches for #14175:
Hey Tim, I got the branch of chutney and tor and made sure that the commands you run in the comments of the issue exist. What do you think would be a good way to start testing? Begin with a static analysis of the code?
If you can read Python and shell script, then checking I haven't made any obvious coding errors in my changes would help. But that might require becoming familiar with the codebase - which may take some effort.
The diffs are here, or you can use git diff: https://github.com/teor2345/chutney/compare/feature14175-chutney-performance... https://github.com/teor2345/tor/compare/feature14175-chutney-performance-v2
Also, I was only using Python 2, so I might have accidentally introduced some incompatibilities with Python 3.
Verify that the bandwidth is correct?
Since it's the localhost, CPU-limited, massively-parallel bandwidth, there's no "correct" value. I'm not even sure what sane values are, but we'll get an idea once people start competing for the biggest numbers.
Let me know what you think is important/feasible.
Does it run? When you make performance improvements, does the bandwidth increase? (Or, far more easily: when you deliberately slow down the code, does the bandwidth tank?)
Tim
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com pgp ABFED1AC https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5
teor at blah dot im OTR D5BE4EC2 255D7585 F3874930 DB130265 7C9EBBC7