pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Long QA test

To: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Long QA test
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:41:28 +1100
Cc: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1236139221.4142.62.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1236130580.4142.50.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18861.64457.477824.834229@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1236139221.4142.62.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This one is totally CPU bound ... it used to run for 220-odd seconds on
my clunker workstation (I've no idea what Nathan's using to stretch that
to 800+ seconds), and I can get it down to 70-odd seconds with a couple
of quick optimizations ... but it is exploring 4096 cases (considering
each word-aligned truncation of the last 16K bytes of the archive to
mimic what might happen with aborted stdio buffering of the output from
pmlogger) for each of 3 archives, and without remembering exactly what
triggered the problem in the past, I'm not sure I can make it do less
work without changing the test coverage.

On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 15:00 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 14:55 +1100, Max Matveev wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:36:20 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > 
> >  nscott> Thats well over 10 minutes.  Its a "pmdanasavg SEGVs in
> >  nscott> pmGetArchiveEnd" test with owner=kenmcd. :)
> > 
> > pmdanasavg was since re-written to use HUTA mode and not do archive
> > tailing. The test is still sort of useful.
> 
> Yep, no disagreement that it looks useful ... it just takes far
> too long.  There must be a way to cut it down to, say, a minute
> or less like most other tests.
> 
> cheers.
> 
> --
> Nathan
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>