1) qm-plinux-trunk01/02/03 should be in agreement, looks to me that
qm-plinux-trunk02 is reporting somewhat high. I've investigated this
before and haven't been able to find any reason for its high results -
but I'll take another look and see if I can figure it out.
2) I think that most of the spikes that are are seeing are associated
with throttling being flipped on/off - this shouldn't be an issue
anymore due to work done on the talos images to keep them correctly
configured.
3) We've obviously had some trouble maintaining the results of these
machines - there's a big zone between 7/1 and 8/19 where all the numbers
were constantly increasing. This was unfortunate and took a long time
to get on anyones radar. I'm hoping that with more vigilant monitoring
of the numbers (and various Q4 goals surrounding auto-monitoring for
regressions) we won't end up with such large gaps in our knowledge. I
think that we'll get better value by looking at the most current results
and ensuring that they make sense.
alice.
L. David Baron wrote:
> So, as today's sheriff, I started looking at performance numbers on
> tinderbox. I looked at the results of the pageload test on Linux.
>
> We're running this test on 5 machines. These machines each have a
> number of spikes in their graphs, but the spikes don't seem
> correlated with each other:
>
http://graphs.mozilla.org/graph.html#show=911694,395125,395135,395166,1431032>
> This makes it seem like these numbers aren't useful at all, since
> it's hard to know which ones are trustworthy and which are not. Do
> we have any idea what's going on here?
>
> I'm particularly worried about two things:
>
> (1) The three original machines have been much less correlated with
> each other since around the beginning of July.
>
> (2) Machines have been spiking independently of each other since
> around the 21st of August.
>
> -David
>
_______________________________________________
dev-performance mailing list
dev-performance@...
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-performance
