Open Stack

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 04:40:19AM -0400, Attila Fazekas wrote:
> History of the Active VM creation performance.
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1016633 <open>
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1100446 <fixed>
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Yeoh" <cyeoh at au1.ibm.com>
> To: openstack-qa at lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-qa] Priolity brainstorming my initial toughts
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:13:24 -0400
> Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:12:11PM +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> > > On 06/14/2013 10:33 AM, Attila Fazekas wrote:
> > > >- Gate time is continuously increasing and it will
> > > >   if we do not act soon.
> > > 
> > > It's an interesting topic but I need a little wrap on on the
> > > situation. Still, it'll hopefully be useful to other people also
> > > willing to contribute.
> > > 
> > > What are the blockers currently preventing us from using testr and
> > > "drop" nose?
> > 
> > So testr will technically run today, (to test it use 'testr run' or
> > in parallel 'testr run --parallel') but you'll find that it is slower
> > than just running serially with nose. 
> 
> What sort of machine are you finding that running in parallel runs
> slower than run serially with nose? A few months ago I was seeing a 2x
> speed up on 4 core machine when running with testr in parallel compared
> to running with nose serially.
> 

So I'm just running this on my dev box with dual Xeon X5570 (total of 8 cores)
and 48GB of RAM. The nose job finished successfully in just under an hour while
the testr --parallel run took slightly more than an hour.

Although, it's been a while since I tried a full run to do a side by side
comparison (which is difficult because testr won't pass everything currently)
but nose will. So I don't know if something like a few tests hitting the max
timeout on testr because of resource contention is what is causing the longer
run time. I can try running it again and getting better more detailed results.

-Matt Treinish