On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:01:18PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote: > Hello folks, > > I've had chats with Manoj and Ambarish about performance testing and what we > can do upstream. Niels today solved half my problem by pointing out that we can > get physical nodes on CentOS CI. The general idea is to run iozone[1] and > smallfile[2] on a fixed frequency for master (to begin with). > > Does this sound like a good idea? If so, read on. > > For this to happens a few things need to happen: > * I'll need some help from a few people who can read the reports and coordinate > fixes. That is, someone needs to "own" performance for upstream. > * I need some help in generating the right reports so we can figure out if our > performance went up or down. The provisioning in the CentOS CI does not allow us to select certain systems (yet). So you would get different performance results, depending on the hardware that the reservation request returns: https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/PubHardware Also, these physical machines do not have additional disks. The single SSD that these systems have, is completely used by the installation, no free space to partition to our liking, no additional disks available. I welcome any additional testing that we can run regulary, but to call it 'performance testing' might be a little pre-mature. At least the performance results should be marked as 'unoptimized' or similar. HTH, Niels > > [1]: http://www.iozone.org/ > [2]: https://github.com/bengland2/smallfile > > -- > nigelb > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
