Jelly performance factors below expectations.
I am not clear on the significance of this statement.
Not significant, just an observation. I've made this statement before,
backed-off after finding errors on my code, but after fixing I see
performance across the bus that still seem slow. "Seem s
On Sep 7, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> Jelly performance factors below expectations.
I am not clear on the significance of this statement.
> Can we say Copyable is the lowest order jelly? The notion that a copy holder
> can't ask "is my copy good anymore?" makes it so. Essenti
Jelly performance factors below expectations.
Can we say Copyable is the lowest order jelly? The notion that a copy
holder can't ask "is my copy good anymore?" makes it so. Essentially root
says, I'd prefer not to repeat unit of work nor keep track of the resulting
copies, here have the original
On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:17 PM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> correction. I was stupidly reprocessing list on remote copy side. Seeing
> much better results now ~10K per second.
Whew. I don't know exactly how well I would expect this perform, but those
other results looked off by a couple orders of m
correction. I was stupidly reprocessing list on remote copy side. Seeing
much better results now ~10K per second.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> I experimented today with a table scan from dynamodb. Taking each record
> and converting to a dictionary into a list. In
I experimented today with a table scan from dynamodb. Taking each record
and converting to a dictionary into a list. Initial scan and transform
took ~8 seconds from amazon to my house over TCP boto which is soapish? i
think. ~7800 records.
The next call for the remote copy took 7 seconds across
On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> I think so too, but I'm starting to lean toward websockets. The warnings
> alone right?
Websockets are a layer well below what PB does. In fact you could run PB over
websockets, and it would work roughly the same as over TCP.
> But I wi
I think so too, but I'm starting to lean toward websockets. The warnings
alone right?
But I will take another pass and report back any success.
Cheers,
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Daniel Sank wrote:
> I think Cacheable exists to handle the case you want. Beware there are
> some funny iss
I think Cacheable exists to handle the case you want. Beware there are some
funny issues with Cacheable
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/7274
Daniel
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> The question is what's necessary to get knowitall.py to receive updates to
> held c
The question is what's necessary to get knowitall.py to receive updates to
held copy.
I start server, start knowitall, run wordsmith. Knowitall doesn't receive
updates. I understand why, setCopyableState only gets fired once.
Guessing jelly doesn't hold onto the RemoteCopy or a reference to
Remo
Kevin,
Is there a question there? I'd be happy to try to help if I knew what you
were asking.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> wordsmith argument order issues re-take.
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
>
>> goal: Give know
wordsmith argument order issues re-take.
Cheers,
Kevin
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Kevin Mcintyre wrote:
> goal: Give knowitall.py awareness of wordsmith.py addition.
>
> to run
> ./library.sh # opens 7999 for remote_dictionary and remote_define methods
> then both:
> python knowitall.py
12 matches
Mail list logo
