|
|
Boost Testing : |
Subject: Re: [Boost-testing] Report generation frequency
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-03 11:37:35
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth <kbelco_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking to increase the frequency that the test reporting runs at,
> it seems that both develop and master update on about a 4 hour cycle or so
> but I could be mistaken. Could I work with whomever is currently running
> test reporting to help increase the frequency and also get some pointers on
> how best to run the reporting scripts, I don't want to step on anyone's
> toes.
>
> I'm running a crown job that kicks off every 4hrs on the hour (00:00,
> 04:00, 08:00, 12:00, 16:00, 20:00). I want to run it more but I have
> some bandwidth constraints and even with rsync doing partial uploads
> and downloads its still a lot of bandwidth. When I get a chance, I
> have a VM running in the cloud that I was going to task with report
> generation, so then I won't have any bandwidth constraints and can run
> more frequently...not sure when that will happen though.
>
> I thought Beman was running them too (I think he said he would run at
> half past?), but I haven't noticed more coming up. He had suggested in
> some past thread that we have different people run them at different
> times of the hour (someone on the hour, someone half past, quarter
> past, etc) so that if one runner goes down the others will seamlessly
> pickup. This would also allow for more frequent generation.
>
I'm thinking of starting to run them also.. I have an ISP account with
unlimited bandwidth and space that I could use.
> The reason that we don't just want people running whenever is that
> we're not sure what will happen if two users try to upload things at
> the same time. If you wanted to jump in and start running at :15 or
> :45, I think that would probably be fine...would once or twice an hour
> be frequent enough for what you were looking for?
>
> Another idea, since the new report generator is pretty quick, maybe we
> could set it up to run on the server (I'm assuming the XSLT wasn't
> done there because of the load it would incur). Then as long as the
> server is up we'll have good reports, and most of the generation
> process is actually downloading and uploading data, so that would be
> easier on the server as well. Thoughts?
>
I'm not sure about the fitness of the server. After a big reason we are
moving away from using it was that is was overloaded. But it's something to
consider. But, also, regardless, we want to have multiple people running
these for redundancy.
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail