[sldev] Some "benchmark/profiling" with new computer stuff.

[Laurent Laborde]

Hi sldev, long time no see !

I love profiling and got some new hardware.
Unfortunaly, i don't know much about profiling under windows vista and
can't make the nice profile i did a long time ago using my macbook
pro.
Anyway... i've seen massive improvment, just using my eyes and the
wonderfull "ctrl-shift-3" (texture) debug windows and i can provide
some information.

Here is the platform, with 1 very specific (lovely) piece of hardware.

1 gigabyte i-ram loaded with 4GB of ram.
It's a wonderfull pci-card with a sata controler on it, and 8 ram
slot, instead of hard drive disk.
that mean : ram based "hard drive", insane I/O performance.
Of course, i put the SL Cache on it.

a month ago, i also added 2GB of ram on my system, for a total of 4GB ow.
big improvment with 4GB :)
Wonderfull improvment with 4GB ram + 4GB i-ram.

So :
- Intel Q6600 .4Ghz quadcore
- 4GB Ram
- 100Mb internet connexion (fiber optic)
- NVidia GTX 8800 768MB vram
- Vista premium 32bits
- some random stuff, like other hdd, screen, keyboard, etc :)

i ran the test in Bare Rose, very, very heavy in texture. (more than 5000)
The "user experience" is wonderfull.
Once the cache is loaded (i started with a clean cache) the texture
load almost instantly.

Secondlife use 50% of my quadcore when loading all the texture. nice
work on the multithreadning :)
No more noisy disk scratching (pfew!)

around 10~20 FPS with very high (custom) quality @ 1600x1050.
Considering the sim, it's great !!

The main bottleneck is now the available bandwidth on the simulator.
fair enough :)

The other bottleneck is that it use 2 core out of 4. But, imho, it's
not a big problem.

One of the big problem, i don't understand why, is when i relog,
The client redownload tons of texture. And some texture should
certainly be in the cache.
I'm 100% sure that they were already downloaded, i talk about a full
wall with around 500 textures on it.
And the debug window clearly show that it download the texture from
the net, instead of getting it from the cache.
And the slowdown is *massive* compared to some other wall loaded from
my wonderfull, lovely, superfast cache.
Something like 1~2mn vs 2~3s

Any idea ?

-- 
F4FQM
Kerunix Flan
Laurent Laborde