On 2015/10/22 18:20, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>
>>> progress: 365.0 s, 18392.1 tps, lat 94.857 ms stddev 23.917, lag 90.980
>>> ms, 106244 skipped
>>>
>>> 100k skipped transactions at a rate limit of 40k? That doesn't seem right.
>>
>> Argh. It's just because I used -P5. It's a bit confusing that the other
>> options are per second, and this is per interval...
>
> I agree, but I'm unsure of a fix, beyond what is already done which is to
> show units next to the figures...
>
> ISTM that people expect "tps" for performance, even on several seconds.
> When it comes to skipped transactions, a count seemed more natural. I
> really just see this as an indicator that things are not going smoothly.
>
> Maybe it could be shown as a percentage of scheduled transactions,
> possibly with an option?
>
> A mitigation is to always run with -P 1 :-).
Wouldn't printing average (per second) over the interval work?
Thanks,
Amit
