[ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations
racke at linuxia.de
Tue May 12 07:20:26 UTC 2009
Gert van der Spoel wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org [mailto:interchange-
>> users-bounces at icdevgroup.org] On Behalf Of Grant
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:16 AM
>> To: interchange-users at icdevgroup.org
>> Subject: Re: [ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations
>>>>> I have a somewhat complex chunk of IC code about 500 lines long.
>>>>> If I
>>>>> set the mv_matchlimit of the main loop to a small number, each
>>>>> iteration takes less than a second to execute. However, as I
>>>>> the mv_matchlimit, each iteration takes longer to execute until
>>>>> quite slow. I've been over my code again and again but I can't
>>>>> find a
>>>>> cause for this behavior. The only clue I have is that each
>>>>> executes much faster when the loop is almost done with all of its
>>>>> I'm wondering if the problem is "under the hood" of IC. Does this
>>>>> scenario ring a bell for anyone?
>>>> I'm baffled by this. I have no idea why increasing mv_matchlimit
>>>> would drastically increase the amount of time required for *each*
>>>> iteration. Please let me know if you have any ideas.
>>> Is there any way you can post the relevant piece of code? Without
>>> knowing what's being iterated over, it's hard to offer suggestions.
>>> In particular, are there any parts which are perl blocks of any
>>> particular flavor (calc, calcn, perl, prefix-exec, etc)? Are there
>>> perhaps multiple nested loop constructs?
>> Here's another illustration of my problem. I set up 15 [email] tags
>> throughout my code so I get an email whenever certain points are
>> reached. With ml=10 I get maybe 20 or so emails per second. With
>> ml=999999 I get much less than 1 email per second. My understanding
>> is that the first 10 iterations should take the same amount of time in
>> either scenario.
>> Does anyone know why IC would execute a single iteration at a
>> drastically slower rate, just because it has more total iterations to
>> My installation is a year or two old. Does this sound like a problem
>> an upgrade could fix?
> e-mail does not seem to be the most useful medium to do performance tests.
> Servers can start holding e-mails or other external influences can cause
> e-mails to arrive less frequently.
> Why not have 15 timestamps written to a logfile, so you can look at this
> data and see if you can find any trends. Is it that the 15 timestamps are
> increasing in interval equally?
> So it was with
> ml=10: time, time+I, time+I+I, time+I+I+I (10, 15, 20, 25 etc)
> ml=999999: time, time+(Ix10), time+(Ix10+Ix10), time+(Ix10+Ix10+Ix10)
> (10, 60, 110, 160 etc)
> or does ml=999999 show a less regular pattern where it has a spike between
> two timings?
> But you can imagine that it is shooting in a black hole here without
> actually seeing the code.
I agree :-). A possible explanation would be that the memory consumption on
larger mv_matchlimit values slows things down (due to problems in the
LinuXia Systems => http://www.linuxia.de/
Expert Interchange Consulting and System Administration
ICDEVGROUP => http://www.icdevgroup.org/
Interchange Development Team
More information about the interchange-users