From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 26 03:29:48 2020 Received: (at 39258) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Apr 2020 07:29:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60800 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jSbjX-0008QQ-W5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:29:48 -0400 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]:53717) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jSbjW-0008QA-Bh for 39258@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:29:46 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 78.199.129.170 Received: from mimimi (moi44-1-78-199-129-170.fbx.proxad.net [78.199.129.170]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 265A81C0008; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:29:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: zimoun , 39258@debbugs.gnu.org, Arun Isaac , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: benchmark search: default vs v2 vs v3 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 09:29:37 +0200 Message-ID: <877dy2902m.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Simon, Thanks for taking the time to benchmark this, this is very insightful! > Usually, my feeling about "guix pull" is... I am waiting! Therefore, > I will not see this extra 25s because it is masked by all the other > work "guix pull" is doing. Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: ambrevar.xyz] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.197 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [217.70.183.197 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.1 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: ambrevar.xyz] 0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL's NS IP listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: ambrevar.xyz] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39258 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Simon, Thanks for taking the time to benchmark this, this is very insightful! > Usually, my feeling about "guix pull" is... I am waiting! Therefore, > I will not see this extra 25s because it is masked by all the other > work "guix pull" is doing. Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: ambrevar.xyz] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.197 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [217.70.183.197 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.1 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: ambrevar.xyz] 0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL's NS IP listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: ambrevar.xyz] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Simon, Thanks for taking the time to benchmark this, this is very insightful! > Usually, my feeling about "guix pull" is... I am waiting! Therefore, > I will not see this extra 25s because it is masked by all the other > work "guix pull" is doing. I agree and this is a very good point in my opinion. While I don't expect nor do I need "guix pull" to complete immediately, this is not true of "guix search". As Simon suggested, maybe we can wrap a benchmark script together, post it on the mailing list and ask member to report their results. Maybe a few dozen results would give us a better idea of the numbers we are dealing with. Cheers! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl6lOGEACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH/HUwf/YH8o+NEQOqbycpcKL4sJe3GXB1HFmwVALSGRggRdguaqBcabj8JygHjx /Oi0n47C69K27bJWsdu1BvfmHHdmmXtHIWIvMl4t1o5NT1Z11sDw7cUL4FDnfJ9Y qV1gS0qVIfx5ccZAbtSSeAhg31IrrzmgXbfBIPksWIWzCF8US6s2ftSh3/QkbJnL 2AodteVHlm9rKaAQPJVQGcRVka7VdaDaH2zUXs1w6e5Q6cp/71oeoeok+QtAnqg5 7jwZceCUu3OA3sMCzabMAadnzC9w/xPJI5knR6Lb5HqtQla4slHgYBTVLtNdXxol 1itksg9vevWgqqwzHdJFr+jADoe1Ew== =prUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--