On 23 September 2013 20:59, Dave Pigott <email address hidden> wrote:
> Review: Needs Fixing
>
> So, previous to this change we had:
>
> fastmodels01
> rtsm_foundation-armv8_01
> rtsm_ve-a15x1-a7x1_01
> rtsm_ve-a15x4-a7x4_01
> rtsm_ve-a15x4-a7x4_02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_03
> rtsm_ve-armv8_04
> fastmodels02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_01
> rtsm_ve-armv8_02
> fastmodels03
> rtsm_foundation-armv8_02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_05
>
> And after this change we would have:
>
> fastmodels01
> rtsm_foundation-armv8_01
> rtsm_ve-a15x1-a7x1_01
> rtsm_ve-a15x4-a7x4_01
> rtsm_ve-a15x4-a7x4_02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_01
>
> fastmodels02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_02
>
> fastmodels03
> rtsm_foundation-armv8_02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_03
>
> So in fact, your change does not remove multiple fast models except on one
> server, fastmodels02.
>
yes, the aim of this change is to have only one rtsm_ve_armv8_0x device on
each node, and adjust the device name identity to the physical machine
node name.
and as far as I know, there is no android image will be tested on
rtsm_foundation-xxx devices, so it should be OK IMO.
for rtsm_ve-a15xxxx devices, we need to see how much effect they would
make, for now seems it's OK.
in the past time, when we have only rtsm_ve-armv8_03 or rtsm_ve-armv8_04
online, the test job works well.
(maybe the load caused by rtsm_ve-a15xxxx devices is not too large).
>
> Perhaps the solution is to have a new device type, rtsm_ve-armv8-single
> which is guaranteed to run on a single node, and only provide one of those.
>
My main issue here is that if we have to have a server per fast model
> instance, then to support the current load and spread, and future new fast
> model types, I need 10 servers, at $2000 each, one per fast model instance.
> That seems rather excessive.
>
For this part about if we should have a server per fast model instance, I
think it is under discussion now.
On 23 September 2013 20:59, Dave Pigott <email address hidden> wrote:
> Review: Needs Fixing -armv8_ 01 a15x1-a7x1_ 01 a15x4-a7x4_ 01 a15x4-a7x4_ 02 -armv8_ 02 -armv8_ 01 a15x1-a7x1_ 01 a15x4-a7x4_ 01 a15x4-a7x4_ 02 -armv8_ 02
>
> So, previous to this change we had:
>
> fastmodels01
> rtsm_foundation
> rtsm_ve-
> rtsm_ve-
> rtsm_ve-
> rtsm_ve-armv8_03
> rtsm_ve-armv8_04
> fastmodels02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_01
> rtsm_ve-armv8_02
> fastmodels03
> rtsm_foundation
> rtsm_ve-armv8_05
>
> And after this change we would have:
>
> fastmodels01
> rtsm_foundation
> rtsm_ve-
> rtsm_ve-
> rtsm_ve-
> rtsm_ve-armv8_01
>
> fastmodels02
> rtsm_ve-armv8_02
>
> fastmodels03
> rtsm_foundation
> rtsm_ve-armv8_03
>
> So in fact, your change does not remove multiple fast models except on one
> server, fastmodels02.
>
yes, the aim of this change is to have only one rtsm_ve_armv8_0x device on
each node, and adjust the device name identity to the physical machine
node name.
and as far as I know, there is no android image will be tested on
rtsm_foundation-xxx devices, so it should be OK IMO.
for rtsm_ve-a15xxxx devices, we need to see how much effect they would
make, for now seems it's OK.
in the past time, when we have only rtsm_ve-armv8_03 or rtsm_ve-armv8_04
online, the test job works well.
(maybe the load caused by rtsm_ve-a15xxxx devices is not too large).
> armv8-single
> Perhaps the solution is to have a new device type, rtsm_ve-
> which is guaranteed to run on a single node, and only provide one of those.
>
My main issue here is that if we have to have a server per fast model
> instance, then to support the current load and spread, and future new fast
> model types, I need 10 servers, at $2000 each, one per fast model instance.
> That seems rather excessive.
>
For this part about if we should have a server per fast model instance, I
think it is under discussion now.
> You will need to get authorisation from Mark Orvek for that sort of spend. /code.launchpad .net/~liuyq0307 /lava-lab/ keep-one- fastmodel- per-node/ +merge/ 185963
>
> --
>
> https:/
> You are the owner of lp:~liuyq0307/lava-lab/keep-one-fastmodel-per-node.
>
-- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- lists.linaro. org/mailman/ listinfo/ linaro- android lists.linaro. org/pipermail/ linaro- validation
Thanks,
Yongqin Liu
-------
#mailing list
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>
http://
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>
http://