[PATCH] Make LNT compatible with PostgreSQL

Daniel Dunbar daniel at zuster.org
Wed Jul 30 11:45:09 PDT 2014


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:

> On 30/07/2014 00:30, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>
>> Here are my thoughts on what we should do:
>>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> thanks for your feedback.
>
>
>  1. Before doing anything substantial, I want to get Chris' patches to
>> rerun tests with significant changes (~= a form of adaptive sampling)
>> landed. I have high hopes for that approach in helping making results
>> more reliable and actionable.
>>
>
> Adaptive sampling is a very neat idea.
>
> Out of interest. How does a database change require these changes?  From
> my naive perspective, I would rather have a set of already running
> buildbots with some history to allow to understand the effectiveness of
> Chris' changes. Hence, having a stable database in place would be nice.


It doesn't, but if the changes work well there is some value in having the
data set be consistent, I thought. The other reason was that if the changes
have bugs or need tweaks, it would be nicer to sort out the issues before
bringing up a new database to keep things "clean" later.


>  2. In the past, when bringing up new databases I have reimported some
>> historical data using the JSON files that the server archives (as Chris
>> noted). I could do that again here if useful.
>>
>
> Sure. We have the last 500 builds going back to July 16 for the 'clang -O3
> builder'. That's 15 days history. Nothing huge, but just enough to get us
> history starting from the 3.5 branch.
>

The server actually has much more data than that, I have the files to
import back to 2012.


>  3. I'm not sure exactly when I will have time to bring up a PostgreSQL
>> instance on llvm.org <http://llvm.org>. I would really love to move to a
>>
>> PaaS solution like Heroku to make managing this kind of thing easier
>> (and easier to collaborate on), but we might not yet have the
>> organizational clout for that.
>>
>
> You seem very busy and Yi Kong has done a great job in moving LNT ahead
> the last months. Maybe he could help out with the installation work?
>

Undoubtedly, the problem with having the server on llvm.org currently is we
have to manage access carefully and also be careful. If it was hosted
elsewhere, we wouldn't need to worry nearly as much about changes.


>
>  4. Last I looked, the llvm.org <http://llvm.org> instance mostly had
>>
>> polly related bots. It would be nice to start off with a more standard
>> set of bots trying to cover the diversity of platforms, in the hopes of
>> making the results more interesting to the larger community.
>>
>
> Right, it is important that we get wider test coverage. On the other side,
> one server is just badly named:
>
> http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity
>
> Those are five machines building 'clang -O3' on X86 without any Polly
> involved. So for X86 at least one configuration is rather strongly tested.
>

Ah, ok. Can we rename that bot?

 - Daniel


>
> Cheers,
> Tobias
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140730/4c2648aa/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list