scripts: add benchmark.sh script for testing #17
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tomhjp
force-pushed
the
benchmark-script
branch
from
fcbf042 to
c9ecc3c
Compare
This is the script I've been using locally to reproducibly simulate what kind of speed-ups I can expect to see for a specific go project depending on how close gocached is and how many cache hits we get. I also experimented with a -miss-percentage flag on go-cacher, but the results were roughly what you'd expect interpolating between cold and warm benchmarks. Typical output for running with defaults: ```shell-session $ ./scripts/benchmark.sh ---- LATENCY=0 ---- Testing with cold cache... 2025/10/16 12:53:36 go-cacher: verbose mode enabled 2025/10/16 12:53:45 cacher: closing; 494 gets (0 hits, 494 misses, 0 errors); 1026 puts (0 errors) Cold run took 8762ms Testing with warm HTTP and disk cache... 2025/10/16 12:53:46 go-cacher: verbose mode enabled 2025/10/16 12:53:46 cacher: closing; 747 gets (744 hits, 3 misses, 0 errors); 3 puts (0 errors) Warm run took 497ms Testing with warm HTTP cache only... 2025/10/16 12:53:47 go-cacher: verbose mode enabled 2025/10/16 12:53:48 cacher: closing; 747 gets (744 hits, 3 misses, 0 errors); 3 puts (0 errors) HTTP run took 628ms ``` Signed-off-by: Tom Proctor <tomhjp@users.noreply.github.com>
tomhjp
force-pushed
the
benchmark-script
branch
from
c9ecc3c to
10287f9
Compare
tomhjp
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 16, 2025
Running with a cold disk cache for go-cacher and a warm disk cache for go-cacher-server, I was getting no cache hits. This is due to a missing component in the output filename when serving up what go-cacher-server thinks is a cache hit; it was trying to serve from <dir>/o-<hex> instead of the real file location of <dir>/<o2>/o-<hex> where o2 is the first 2 characters of the hex string. To help with consistency, I consolidated all places that need to calculate an action or output file path into 2 shared functions, but there is only one functional change. Tested via the benchmarks I included in #17, but it's probably worth investing in some unit tests as well as we start to use this more seriously. Signed-off-by: Tom Proctor <tomhjp@users.noreply.github.com>
tomhjp
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 16, 2025
Running with a cold disk cache for go-cacher and a warm disk cache for go-cacher-server, I was getting no cache hits. This is due to a missing component in the output filename when serving up what go-cacher-server thinks is a cache hit; it was trying to serve from `<dir>/o-<hex>` instead of the real file location of `<dir>/<o2>/o-<hex>` where o2 is the first 2 characters of the hex string. To help with consistency, I consolidated all places that need to calculate an action or output file path into 2 shared functions, but there is only one functional change. Tested via the benchmarks I included in #17, but it's probably worth investing in some unit tests as well as we start to use this more seriously. Signed-off-by: Tom Proctor <tomhjp@users.noreply.github.com>
tomhjp
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
Running with a cold disk cache for go-cacher and a warm disk cache for go-cacher-server, I was getting no cache hits. This is due to a missing component in the output filename when serving up what go-cacher-server thinks is a cache hit; it was trying to serve from `<dir>/o-<hex>` instead of the real file location of `<dir>/<o2>/o-<hex>` where o2 is the first 2 characters of the hex string. To help with consistency, I consolidated all places that need to calculate an action or output file path into 2 shared functions, but there is only one functional change. Tested via the benchmarks I included in #17, but it's probably worth investing in some unit tests as well as we start to use this more seriously. Signed-off-by: Tom Proctor <tomhjp@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is the script I've been using locally to reproducibly simulate what kind of speed-ups I can expect to see for a specific go project depending on how close gocached is and how many cache hits we get. I also experimented with a -miss-percentage flag on go-cacher, but the results were roughly what you'd expect interpolating between cold and warm benchmarks.
Typical output for running with defaults: