diff --git a/Performance/Sep2011.md b/Performance/Sep2011.md index bac69f5..e5acf62 100644 --- a/Performance/Sep2011.md +++ b/Performance/Sep2011.md @@ -94,3 +94,27 @@ Some graphs were added to Complete benchmark toolchain and data included in [atlasperf.git.tar.gz](../raw/attachments/Performance/Sep2011/atlasperf.git.tar.gz) + +Zooko raised the question (20-May-2012) on IRC: +``` + warner: this page says that K=60 takes twice as long as K=30: + https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/Performance/Sep2011 + But these graphs seems to show those two taking about the same time as +each other: + +https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/attachment/wiki/Performance/Sep2011/MDMF-100MB-partial.png + +https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/attachment/wiki/Performance/Sep2011/MDMF-1MB-partial.png + I hope the latter is true. :-) +``` + +Those partial-read graphs certainly don't show a linear difference +between k=30 and k=60. At best there might be a 4% difference between +k=3 and k=30, and k=30/k=60 look identical. + +I think I was prompted to write that sentence by looking at the yellow +"trunk-MDMF" line in the [CHKMDMF-100MB-vs-k.png](../raw/attachments/Performance/Sep2011/CHKMDMF-100MB-vs-k.png) graph, which +*does* show a linear slowdown with increasing k (with a lower multiplier +than the new-immutable-downloader). I don't know how to reconcile the +two. So something is funny, and I need to review the data, and possible +run new tests.