[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [svnbench] Revision: 1463069 compiled Apr 1 2013, 00:22:00 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:47:31 +0300

Neels Hofmeyr wrote on Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 15:12:54 +0200:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:45:17 +0300
> Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:42:52 +0300:
> > > Neels Hofmeyr wrote on Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:29:09 +0200:
> > > > Somewhere between r1454789 and r1457253 on trunk, that's three to
> > > > four weeks ago, 'commit', 'copy' and 'merge' got dramatically
> > > > faster: as much as 80%, and more! Amazing.
> > >
> > > Ahem, you should probably correlate that with whenever our VM was
> > > moved to the shiny new VMs host.
>
> Hmm, would have been nice to know about this in advance :)

You should talk to Tony/Gavin (via infrastructure@).

Note that even if infra moves a VM other than ours between hosts, that
might affect the load on our current host, which in turn might affect
the benchmarks.

> Then again, I'd probably have to read *all* mails coming in to be sure
> that I wasn't notified, even those that don't contain my name. :P
>

Just the mails from infra folks :-)

>
> > Probably the easiest way to do this is by re-running the benchmark
> > against r1454789?
>
> This would be a good time to blow the entire collected benchmark data
> into the wind and start afresh. This is close to embarrassing. But can
> happen. That's why I keep including one-too-many disclaimers...
>

Well yes it's unfortunate, but at least we know the real reason for the
unexplained greening of the results.

> Do we have another host or two that could run benchmarks periodically?
> Then I'd only call results consistent if all three benchmarkers show
> similar change.
>

Ask on infra@?
Received on 2013-04-02 18:48:14 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.