On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:55:00PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 01:49:52PM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote: > > 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 > > > > The goal of this testing, to begin with, wouldn't be to get absolute numbers > but to try and catch decrease in performance, if that makes sense. In essence, > it's regression testing but for performance. Ah, ok, changing the subject to reflect that. > Thank you for raising the fact that it may be inconsistent, I'll talk to the > Centos CI folks and see what's the best way forward for us before we get here. > But let's work with the assumption that I'll sort out the infra side of things. There has been a request from others already to be able to select the blade-chassis during reserving machines. This would come a long way to get comparable results. Otherwise we can compare the results based on sub-domain (per chassis) where the tests were running (more difficult when multiple machines/chassis are involved). Thanks, 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 > > > > -- > nigelb
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
