[Gluster-devel] Regular Performance Regression Testing

[Niels de Vos]

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 at gluster.org
> > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> 
> 
> 
> --
> nigelb
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20160829/7fd3be18/attachment.sig>