On 05/19/2014 05:55 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
On 05/19/2014 10:33 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (17/05/14 01:14), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> It might look I was exaggerating in my previous mail.
No, it didn't really.
> "ramdisk" is 58x faster then HDD.
> "ramdisk" is 26x faster then HDD.
Out of curiosity: why is it so much faster? Does the code sync to disc often?
I did some light tests and while I don't see such a dramatic difference on my
setup, it is still considerable. A "make check" with Valgrind took 26 minutes
with test-dir on HDD and 16 minutes on ramdisk.
I just noticed that the difference actually fits your observation of bare
parallel run on ramdisk/HDD. It is about 9 minutes for my Valgrind run as
well.
Also, you ran Valgrind with single tests only and without --leak-check=full.
That's probably why I was confused about expected runtime with Valgrind.
Could you perhaps try timing the command running all tests under Valgrind,
which I mentioned in the previous message, if time allows?
Thank you.
Sorry my replies are a bit fumbled, I'm still having cold symptoms.
Sincerely,
Nick