Re: Recording test runtimes with the buildfarm

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recording test runtimes with the buildfarm
Date: 2020-06-10 21:56:45
Message-ID: 26413.1591826205@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I have in the past scraped the latter results and tried to make sense of
>> them. They are *mighty* noisy, even when considering just one animal
>> that I know to be running on a machine with little else to do.

> Do you recall if you looked at the parallel results or the serially
> executed ones?

> I imagine that the parallel ones will have much more noise since we
> run the tests up to 20 at a time. I imagine probably none, or at most
> not many of the animals have enough CPU cores not to be context
> switching a lot during those the parallel runs. I thought the serial
> ones would be better but didn't have an idea of they'd be good enough
> to be useful.

I can't claim to recall specifically, but I agree with your theory
about that, so I probably looked at the serial-schedule case.

Note that this is moot for animals using use_installcheck_parallel
... but it looks like that's still just a minority of them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-06-10 22:00:15 Re: Recording test runtimes with the buildfarm
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-06-10 21:43:43 Re: Recording test runtimes with the buildfarm