On 05/16/2014 11:32 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (16/04/14 21:30), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> In my case there is no beneficial performance difference when running with
> valgrind. There is about 25% improvement using /dev/shm when running with
> coverage enabled, but even in a VM it takes less than a minute on my machine.
>
I was waiting for pshing patch to the upstream.
This is a reason of late reply.
> I will use /dev/shm and will mess with moving test results around, when/if
> I'll need to tune the performance, but for now I'd prefer to keep my CI code
> simple and use relative directories.
>
I have totally different results. The most problematic is sysdb test,
because there is a lof of IO operations.
I admit I didn't test this thoroughly and might have hit a corner case and
perhaps I was biased. I'll retry my tests properly once I get to the point of
optimizing performance.
Thanks for testing and posting your results, Lukas.
Sincerely,
Nick