On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 07:12:03AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Very nice :) > You should post an [ANNOUNCE] every now and then. > I rarely check upstream of xfstests-bld, because it just-works ;-) Right now, the PTS support in gce-xfstests is very manual. Right now the VM is launched via "gce-xfstests pts", then you have to log into the VM, "gce-xfstests ssh pts" after a few minutes, then run "phoronix-test-suite pts/disk", answer a few questions, and then afterwards run "pts-save --results" and then kill off the pts VM. I want to get it to the point where "gce-xfstests pts" is sufficient, where the benchmarks are run and the VM is automatically shut down afterwards. Also still to be done is to add support for kvm-xfstests. That'll hopefully be done in the next month or so, as I have some free time. > I suppose you have access to a dedicated metal in the cloud for running > your performance regression tests? Or at least a dedicated metal per execution. I'm not currently using a dedicated VM currently. I've been primarily using a 1TB PD-SSD as the storage medium and a n1-standard-16 as the VM type. That's been fairly reliable. Using GCE Local SSD is a little tricky because there is more than one underlying hardware, and that can result in differing results across different VM's. What you *can* do is to just use the same VM, and then kexec into different kernels each time. This can be done manually, by copying in a different kernel into /root/bzImage, and then running /root/do_kexec, and then running the next benchmark. Eventually my plan to support this with a command like gce-xfstests --kernel gs://$B/bzImage-4.19,gs://bz/$B/bzImage-5.3 \ --local-ssd pts The reason why Local SSD is interesting is that GCE's Persistent Disk has a very different performance profile than HDD's or SSD's --- it acts much more like a battery-backed enterprise storage array, in that CACHE FLUSH's are super fast, as are random writes. GCE Local SSD acts like, well, a real high performance SSD, and it's good to benchmark both. > I have not looked into GCE, so don't know how easy it is and how expensive > to use GCE this way. A benchmark run does take longer than "gce-xfstests -g auto", since you generally use a larger VM and a larger amount of storage. A 1T PD-SSD plus a n1-standard-16 VM is about a dollar an hour, and it's 3-4 hours to run the pts/disk benchmark suite. So call it $3-4 for a single performance test run. > Is there any chance of Google donating this sort of resource for a performance > regression test bot? We're not at the point where we could run gce-xfstests (either for functional or performance testing) as a bot. There's still some development work that needs to happen before that could be a reality. For now, if there was a development team that wanted to use gce-xfstests for performance and benchmarking, I'm happy to put them in contact with the folks at Google which support open source projects. - Ted
