We used to get 115m and 127m for 1.3 M1 and M2 on our test machine. > Hello guys, > > I am sorry I did not notice the last line in the e-mail. > > When we ran the performance testing we pre-downloaded all the sources, > because last week had a lot of connectivity issues. I mentioned in the > e-mail that the build time refers to an image built after all the > sources were downloaded. > The machine on which the test was ran is the same as for M1. > > I will ask Stefan to re-run the performance tests for the different > milestones so far, M1 and M2, in the same conditions as for M3 so we > would have a clear view. > > I add Jiajun in the loop so he can help us if he can with a test to > see if this is related to an artifact as Richard said, but also there > were some improvements made by Beth on filesystem generation. > > Br, > Laurentiu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Song > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:50 PM > To: Serban, Laurentiu; Purdie, Richard > Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org; Stewart, David C; Wold, Saul > Subject: RE: 1.3 M3 Full Pass test results > > Hi Laurentiu, > > Do you have any comment on the performance question Richard asked? I > know your team is using a machine with different configuration from > the one used by the Shanghai team. The performance figure from the > Shanghai team has been hovering around 110 mins. That's the case for > 1.2 release and 1.3 M2 milestone report. 1.3 M1 milestone report has > the build time as 95 minutes, which I believe is from your team. So my > question is whether you used the same machine for M3 performance > testing as for M1. Another factor that might have caused the > difference (between 95 and 83 minutes) is your testing > procedure/environment such as other processes running at the same > time, memory usage, sstate cache, etc. If you used the same machine > and same testing procedure/environment, then we have some improvement in M3 > compared with M1. Please let me know your thoughts. > > Thanks, > Song > > -----Original Message----- > From: Serban, Laurentiu > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:34 AM > To: Purdie, Richard > Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org; Liu, Song; Stewart, David C; Wold, Saul > Subject: RE: 1.3 M3 Full Pass test results > > Hello Richard, > > Even if the installer is used in the default mode, issues still occur > (see comment 7). I think the root cause for these is the same, so I did not > submit a new bug. > > Thank you, > Laurentiu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Purdie, Richard > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:22 PM > To: Serban, Laurentiu > Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org; Liu, Song; Stewart, David C; Wold, Saul > Subject: Re: 1.3 M3 Full Pass test results > > On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 20:13 +0100, Serban, Laurentiu wrote: > >> Here are the results for the full pas tests on 1.3 M3 RC2. The >> commit used for testing is 8b8748c8f963900b83dc0fdd7757556f917fe4fd. >> >> Some details about the encountered issues below: >> >> BSP – Sudoku-savant project build issue (2878) >> >> ADT – the relocatable sdk issue (2980) causes 13 test cases to be on >> faile/blocked state > > I thought it worked as long as you didn't have to relocate it so no > tests should have been blocked, we just have the relocation issue? > >> , also the Clutter C template issue is unsolved (2577) >> Core Build System – x32 is still an issue (2888), cleaning sstate >> issue is still not solved (2897), incremental RPM image generation >> (2969), source archiving (2619), the kvm issue was reproduced by >> another colleague (2790) Yocto BSP creation via JSON (2693) or for >> qemu (2991) fails, multilib issue (2918 – this requires a little >> more investigation from QA), >> >> HOB - all seems ok for RC2 >> >> Self-hosted-image - cannot start on Virtual Box (X issue), it is >> very slow on qemu and it has a m4 package build (3005) issue on >> VMWare. If the self-hosted-image is used on machine with internet >> connectivity via proxy there will be an initial sanity check >> failure, but this is not a blocking issue. >> >> A mention for the performance testing: on a Ubbuntu 12.04 i7 >> machine using 8 threads the build time was 83 minutes (with prior fetching). > > How does this compare with our other performance numbers. From what I > remember, we used to hover around the 105-115 minute mark. Did we have > some significant speed gains or is this just an artefact of changing > the test machine? > > Cheers, > > Richard > >
Best Regards, Jiajun _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto