On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:43:26AM +0200, Mic J wrote:
quoted text
> So since benchmarking is out, how do we then find out where
> potential problems are.
> What does OpenBSD developers do, since surely they don't benchmark :)
> 
> Maybe we should  profile instead ?
> 
> I'm not very experienced with webservers, but here
> how i would approach it.
> 
> 1. i have a problem, i think about it where/what the problem could be
> 2 i check the logs - test my equipment
> 3. I create 1 or a few profiling tests / micro benchmarks to test my assumptions
>     or make certain i haven't misinterpreted my problems.

I have *never* seen a micro benchmark yield anything of value.  Ever!

While one is writing some code one tends to avoid stupid constructs.

quoted text
> 4.  Step back and interpret results
> 5. think of other tests / micro benchmarks that could further enlighten me
>    and confirm/unconfirm(?) my "findings"

You find me a test and I'll find you a bunch of corner cases.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

quoted text
> What i wouldnt  do, is "design" a mother of a benchmark that covers
> all the bases.
> It's to hard to get right. It would take to much time.

Does not exist.  This is a bunch of malarkey.  This is the same as
measuring the position _AND_ momentum.  If you don't get this then you
need to write more OS code... that runs On 16 or so architectures...

quoted text
> How would OpenBSD dev's approach a issue.
> How are issues generally searched for/ found out?
> 
> I imagine something like
> OpenBSD dev works on the httpd daemon - asks for testing.
> I find a problem,  ex: it'd slow like heck - check configuration -

For various degrees of heck?  Large quantities of 1?

quoted text
> interfaces - logs
> What now - i write back to dev.
> dev asks me to do what?
> What does the dev do behind the scenes?

Profiling under a "reasonable" load and that is where all benchmarks
fall apart.  My definition of a "reasonable" load is different from
everyone else's.