potiuk commented on pull request #14531:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/14531#issuecomment-790050472


   > Not once in that comment you linked to did you say that you tested it on 
AWS.
   
   The whole comment was after the PR failed. I is exclusively about the tests 
that are failing in this PR and justifying the need why we need bigger than 32 
- II even copy&pasted the output from the configuration printed by the failing 
tests and the machines in AWS. There. And I explained that it takes 26 minutes 
to fail (in those very tests which were originated by the PR). 
   
   And THEN I explained why I believe 64 GB as needed (because corresponding 
tests were taking 35 GB on my machine).
   
   Here is the beginning of the comment. All of it refers to tests that failed 
on our self-hosted architecture on 32 GB machine. I re-read it again, and I 
think you cannot read it differently. I am just explaining why we need bigger 
machines for our tests (which are - obviously running on our AWS 
infrastructure).
   
   > Hey @ashb - we need bigger machines as I suspected :) .
   
   > The good news is that it will be much cheaper in the long run as we will 
need them for far less time.
   
   > The tests are failing but mainly because of memory problems and timeouts 
(so I guess we are simply using too much of RAM , if we up the machine to 64 GB 
I think this should go rather smoothly. The good news is that even with not 
enough memory (and with failures/timeouts) the tests took ~26 m (!) for sqlite 
- rather than > 1 h, so when we have enough memory we can achieve the 15 
minutes I was hoping for. Those 64 GB machines are only a bit more expensive 
than the 32 GB ones, so we will save a lot of credits when it works.
   
   
   
   
   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


Reply via email to