On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:21:52AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 03:17, Antony Antony <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Toumo brought up his old server, running F29, and I am doing a benchmark of > > testrun - time run our current KVM test suite using kvmrunner. > > > > Here are the first results. > > 80 Minutes for a testrun. This is impressive to me. > > Number of tests from master ~748. > >
I ran about 7-10 runs one run stopped at 386. I didn't capture the logs. the rest seems stable. I tried another combination and 24/40 runtime 55 minutes for 748 tests. |KVM_WORKERS/KVM_PREFIX| run time | | 12/28 | 79 Minutes | | 8/24 | 101 | | 8/28 | 118 | |24/40 | 55 | I think the CPU is good at switching tasks with less issues. > Are the actual results relatively stable? I guss so. What signs for unreliable runs? I noticed "timeout": 12 I see the same on testing.libreswan.org too. > I only tested a machine with cores==threads but you've got > cores<threads so you might want to add the results to the current testing.libreswan.org is also cores<threads? 4<8 This one 16<32 and two CPU dies. > https://libreswan.org/wiki/Test_Suite_-_Performance > > > I suspect there is still room tune more. We will see. > > > > So the 7 year old Enterprise Xeon perform better than a new (6 months old) > > basic servers in the same price range. > > To be fair, I've not tried to tune the new server, I've been waiting > for the failures to settle down (#include sound of drumming fingers) > (somewhere there's a todo to embed the above numbers in the web > results) I am curious how far we can push the current testing.libreswan.org current runs of ~5+ hours looks poor to me. While this old server is able to do a run less than an hour. -antony _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
