Subject: Fpre‑080‑rm‑javhd.today01‑59‑59 Min
The harness records the following per‑second aggregates:
| Metric | Source |
|--------|--------|
| Frame‑Rate (fps) | JavhdProcessor.getProcessedFrames() |
| CPU Utilization | /proc/stat + cAdvisor |
| Memory Usage | JVM MemoryMXBean + /proc/meminfo |
| Disk I/O | iostat (device‑level) |
| Power | Intel RAPL (package‑level) |
| Error Counters | JavhdErrorHandler (drops, corrupt frames) |
| Latency (end‑to‑end per frame) | Timestamp at ingest vs. egress | Fpre-080-rm-javhd.today01-59-59 Min
All metrics are stored in a Prometheus‑compatible time‑series database and exported as CSV for offline analysis.
This document provides an exhaustive overview of the Fpre‑080‑rm‑javhd benchmark run performed on today at 01:59:59 AM (UTC). The test lasted 59 minutes and was designed to evaluate the performance, stability, and resource utilization of the JAVHD (Java‑based High‑Definition) video processing pipeline under a simulated production workload. Subject: Fpre‑080‑rm‑javhd
Key findings include:
| Metric | Result | Target / Baseline | Comments | |--------|--------|-------------------|----------| | Average Frame‑Rate | 129.7 fps | ≥ 120 fps | Surpassed target; 8 % headroom. | | Peak CPU Utilization | 94 % (8 cores) | ≤ 95 % | Within safe operating range. | | Peak Memory Consumption | 19.8 GB (out of 32 GB) | ≤ 20 GB | Near‑limit; consider memory‑optimisations for future runs. | | Disk I/O Throughput | 1.73 GB/s (read) / 1.61 GB/s (write) | ≤ 2 GB/s | Acceptable; I/O subsystem not a bottleneck. | | Error Rate | 0.003 % (3 errors per 100 k frames) | ≤ 0.01 % | Well within tolerances. | | Power Consumption | 215 W (average) | ≤ 250 W | Energy budget met. | The harness records the following per‑second aggregates: |
The run demonstrated that the current configuration of JAVHD is more than capable of handling the projected production load for the next 12 months, with ample performance margin for additional feature roll‑outs (e.g., 4K HDR streams). However, the memory footprint is approaching the allocated limit, prompting a recommendation for either a modest increase in RAM or a review of the buffer management strategy.
The measured 0.60 fps/W indicates that the system is operating efficiently, with headroom for additional workloads without exceeding the 250 W power budget set by the data‑center cooling policy.