Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #122 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.93% 91.92% -2.01%
==========================================
Files 44 44
Lines 5573 5377 -196
Branches 5573 5377 -196
==========================================
- Hits 5235 4943 -292
- Misses 269 360 +91
- Partials 69 74 +5
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
spoutn1k
force-pushed
the
spoutn1k/EHT-1348-history-in-the-making
branch
from
25fe838 to
6bede68
Compare
|
Bencher Report| Branch | spoutn1k/EHT-1348-history-in-the-making |
| Testbed | ci-runner |
Click to view all benchmark results
| Benchmark | Latency | Benchmark Result nanoseconds (ns) (Result Δ%) | Lower Boundary nanoseconds (ns) (Limit %) | Upper Boundary nanoseconds (ns) (Limit %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| parse_benchmarks/combine_performance | 📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold | 129,540,000.00 ns(-52.98%)Baseline: 275,483,750.00 ns | -707,499,705.20 ns (-546.16%) | 1,258,467,205.20 ns (10.29%) |
|
| Branch | spoutn1k/EHT-1348-history-in-the-making |
| Testbed | ci-runner |
⚠️ WARNING: No Threshold found!Without a Threshold, no Alerts will ever be generated.
- LL Hit Rate (hits (%))
- RAM Hit Rate (hits (%))
- RAM Hits (hits)
- L1 Hits (hits)
- Dr (reads)
- L1 Hit Rate (hits (%))
- LLd Miss Rate (misses (%))
- I1 Miss Rate (misses (%))
- DLmr (misses (reads))
- D1 Miss Rate (misses (%))
- ILmr (misses (reads))
- Dw (writes)
- LL Hits (hits)
- Total read+write (reads/writes)
- LL Miss Rate (misses (%))
- I1mr (misses (reads))
- LLi Miss Rate (misses (%))
- D1mr (misses (reads))
- Estimated Cycles (cycles)
- DLmw (misses (writes))
- D1mw (misses (writes))
Click here to create a new Threshold
For more information, see the Threshold documentation.
To only post results if a Threshold exists, set the--ci-only-thresholdsflag.
Click to view all benchmark results
| Benchmark | D1 Miss Rate | misses (%) | D1mr | misses (reads) x 1e3 | D1mw | misses (writes) x 1e3 | DLmr | misses (reads) | DLmw | misses (writes) x 1e3 | Dr | reads x 1e6 | Dw | writes x 1e6 | Estimated Cycles | cycles x 1e6 | I1 Miss Rate | misses (%) | I1mr | misses (reads) x 1e3 | ILmr | misses (reads) | Instructions | Benchmark Result instructions x 1e6 (Result Δ%) | Lower Boundary instructions x 1e6 (Limit %) | Upper Boundary instructions x 1e6 (Limit %) | L1 Hit Rate | hits (%) | L1 Hits | hits x 1e6 | LL Hit Rate | hits (%) | LL Hits | hits x 1e3 | LL Miss Rate | misses (%) | LLd Miss Rate | misses (%) | LLi Miss Rate | misses (%) | RAM Hit Rate | hits (%) | RAM Hits | hits x 1e3 | Total read+write | reads/writes x 1e6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lustre_metrics::memory_benches::bench_encode_lustre_metrics with_setup:generate_records() | 📈 view plot | 0.93 % | 📈 view plot | 25.27 reads x 1e3 | 📈 view plot | 9.22 writes x 1e3 | 📈 view plot | 113.00 reads | 📈 view plot | 6.45 writes x 1e3 | 📈 view plot | 2.47 x 1e6 | 📈 view plot | 1.22 x 1e6 | 📈 view plot | 14.80 x 1e6 | 📈 view plot | 0.01 % | 📈 view plot | 1.03 reads x 1e3 | 📈 view plot | 879.00 reads | 📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold | 10.74 x 1e6(-21.60%)Baseline: 13.70 x 1e6 | 2.60 x 1e6 (24.19%) | 24.80 x 1e6 (43.31%) | 📈 view plot | 99.75 % | 📈 view plot | 14.40 x 1e6 | 📈 view plot | 0.19 % | 📈 view plot | 28.09 x 1e3 | 📈 view plot | 0.05 % | 📈 view plot | 0.18 % | 📈 view plot | 0.01 % | 📈 view plot | 0.05 % | 📈 view plot | 7.44 x 1e3 | 📈 view plot | 14.43 x 1e6 |
|
Do we have all snapshots updated with prometheus client lib? |
|
@gaurangtapase all the snapshots are using the new |
|
Changes look ok considering that we have seen consistency in the data with the introduction of the new library and we now can fully rely on that going forward. Just to make sure we are not missing anything, please check the code coverage drop. |
|
We have some pretty broken snapshots on main. lustrefs-exporter/lustrefs-exporter/testcmds/cmds_test_app_routes.json Lines 71 to 100 in 07b820a We need to fix those before merging anything. |
spoutn1k
force-pushed
the
spoutn1k/EHT-1348-history-in-the-making
branch
from
c5ed41f to
a789529
Compare
spoutn1k
force-pushed
the
spoutn1k/EHT-1348-history-in-the-making
branch
from
a789529 to
dbc3217
Compare
spoutn1k
force-pushed
the
spoutn1k/EHT-1348-history-in-the-making
branch
from
0b9164c to
17fe7f9
Compare
| "stdout": "", | ||
| "stderr": "cat: /usr/local/bin/../fixtures/lnetctl_stats.txt: No such file or directory\n", | ||
| "exit_code": 1 |
|
@breuhan @gaurangtapase @jparris please give it a glance, the coverage drops but seemingly only due to the sheer amount of lines removed as codecov cannot pinpoint a change. |
| @@ -215,4 +215,4 @@ | |||
| } | |||
| ] | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need to add them back :)
All of them :)
|
@spoutn1k please rebase. |
5 participants
Fixes EHT-1348.
The historical snapshots were made to assert the validity of the data while switching backends.
Now that we stabilized the library, they outlived their usefulness. We had to implement quite dirty hacks to compare them to new data, and going foward we will have to rename some metrics, invalidating these.
I remove all of this in this PR. Going forward we should validate the output from version to version and not relating to some obsolete version.