On 09/02/2015 01:12 PM, intrigeri wrote: > hi, > > anonym wrote (02 Sep 2015 09:11:43 GMT) : >> I got a video that was 309 MiB large [...] > > Assuming (very wild guess) that the size gain brought by the proposed > changes from #10001 can be extrapolated, this could become 117 MiB. > If that's mostly correct, then with an aggressive enough cleaning > policy (e.g. delete those that are more than 7 days old), I *guess* > that we can very well afford storing those. I guess that our existing > artifacts cleanup script could easily be adjusted to support expiring > videos as well (note that we may need different expiration policies > for videos and for other test suite artifacts, that we may want to > keep longer; not sure yet; needs to be refined).
Great! >> It's interesting to note that this runtime is not different from what I >> normally get when running this branch on the isotesters (I said "~350 >> minutes" earlier in this thread), > > Excellent news: this means that the runtime increase concern is not > valid on lizard -- one less blocker for archiving videos. > bertagaz also confirmed that archiving them is not much more work for > him, so we should be good. I just updated the ticket with more thorough test results. It seems it *does* increase the runtime with 17% (old video compression) vs 5.8% (new). The run I talked about above was just one data point, after all, so it's not entirely surprising if I got outlying results. I'm running another run without --capture now for comparison. However, there are so many other variables that can make the runtime differ (transient errors, Tor bootstrapping issues that make it take a longer time (which seems to cluster in time for some reasons)) so I'm not sure what that will be run. Any way, I trust my test results on #10001. >> which makes me wonder if the main concern of #10001, that --capture >> increases the runtime (even when enough CPU is available), is >> actually valid. I'm gonna investigate that now... > > Well, it *is* valid at least on my system. However, it could depend on > hardware, and/or on the version of the video codec libraries (I did my > tests on sid, which is useful info because that gives us an idea of > what software we'll run on our infra in ~2 years). Right. I guess we need longterm statistics on the isotesters to be able to see any meaningful numbers. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.