1 files changed, 86 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/client-responsiveness/README.rst b/client-responsiveness/README.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5427ecd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/client-responsiveness/README.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+soledad performance tests
+-------------------------
+some minimalistic benchmarks.
+small prototypes to compare async behavior under load.
+
+intended to evolve to small prototypes that:
+
+* run soledad
+* try different options for the decryption pool (inline, threads, processes).
+* serve also a simple server to test how reactor is able to respond under cpu
+  load.
+
+
+You can use the makefile to launch different servers and compare their
+performance::
+  make inline-server  # executes cpu load inline
+  make thread-server  # cpu load in a twisted threadpool
+  make ampoule-server # cpu load in an ampoule process pool
+  make perf           # runs httperf against the server, with a moderate cpu load.
+  make perf-little    # runs httperf against the server, (less requests).
+  make perf-easy      # runs httperf against a no-cpu load.
+
+If you want to modify the cpu load, you can pass the FIB parameter as an
+environment variable::
+  FIB=20 make inline-server
+  curl localhost:8080/
+  $ answer is >>> 6765
+
+
+Analysis
+---------------
+Let's run some experiments, in the three situations.
+
+A) Compare a **fixed, moderate cpu load** (ie, parameters to the fib function in the range fib(25)/fib(30)) in terms of req/sec.
+
+* Very similar rates. For fib(30), this gives something ~3 req/s in my machine.
+* some overhead is appreciated.
+* RAM usage??
+* graph it!!
+
+B) Stablish a **baseline for the no-cpu** perf case (perf-easy). In my machine this varies, but
+   it's in the range 600-800 req/s. Note: since w/o cpu load this target runs very
+   fas, this can be scripted to log one measure ever 500ms or so.
+
+c) **Simultaneous easy+load**: Observe how the no-cpu perf case degrades when run
+   against each one of the three servers, *while the servers are handling a moderate cpu load*.
+   Still have to graph this properly, and measure std etc, but looking quickly
+   at data I have three conclusions (yes, I'm biased!).
+
+   * inline cpu load is a no-go: it blocks the reactor.
+   * threaded is better,
+   * but ampoule-multiprocessing is superior when we look at how responsive the reactor is still.
+
+   to do still for this case:
+
+   * RAM usage?? graph before, during, after
+   * graph it!!
+   * experiment with different parameters for the process pool.
+
+
+Run debug soledad server
+-------------------------
+You need this patched branch to run a local server with dummy authentication. I
+run this in a separate machine in your local network. I use vanilla couchdb server, with no authentication whatsoever. Warning: this is dangerous, it will eat your couch data so use it at your own
+risk::
+
+  twistd -n web --port 2323 --wsgi leap.soledad.server.debug_local_application_do_not_use 
+
+Then you have to create a user for the sync to be done::
+
+  cd soledad/server/pkg 
+  SOLEDAD_BYPASS_AUTH=1 ./create-user-db user-deadbeef
+
+You also have to create the shared database locally::
+
+  curl -X PUT localhost:5984/shared 
+ 
+
+To-Do
+--------------
+* [x] make the cpu load variable (parameter to fib function: pass it as env var).
+* [x] graph req/sec in response to variable cpu loads (parameter to fib).
+* [x] graph response of perf-easy DURING a run of perf/perf-little. 
+* [ ] compare the rate of responsiveness against variable cpu loads.
+* [ ] scale these minimalistic examples to realistic payload decryption using gnupg.
+