Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Visualize subsystem regression tests results #3531

Closed
AndreiEres opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 0 comments
Closed

Visualize subsystem regression tests results #3531

AndreiEres opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
T12-benchmarks This PR/Issue is related to benchmarking and weights.

Comments

@AndreiEres
Copy link
Contributor

AndreiEres commented Feb 29, 2024

Subsystem regression tests for availability read and write introduced in #3311.

We should have some sort of graphs based on benchmark results to look at performance changes over the time. Visualized results should be made available to the community.

@AndreiEres AndreiEres added the T12-benchmarks This PR/Issue is related to benchmarking and weights. label Feb 29, 2024
@AndreiEres AndreiEres self-assigned this Feb 29, 2024
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2024
…#3311)

### What's been done
- `subsystem-bench` has been split into two parts: a cli benchmark
runner and a library.
- The cli runner is quite simple. It just allows us to run `.yaml` based
test sequences. Now it should only be used to run benchmarks during
development.
- The library is used in the cli runner and in regression tests. Some
code is changed to make the library independent of the runner.
- Added first regression tests for availability read and write that
replicate existing test sequences.

### How we run regression tests
- Regression tests are simply rust integration tests without the
harnesses.
- They should only be compiled under the `subsystem-benchmarks` feature
to prevent them from running with other tests.
- This doesn't work when running tests with `nextest` in CI, so
additional filters have been added to the `nextest` runs.
- Each benchmark run takes a different time in the beginning, so we
"warm up" the tests until their CPU usage differs by only 1%.
- After the warm-up, we run the benchmarks a few more times and compare
the average with the exception using a precision.

### What is still wrong?
- I haven't managed to set up approval voting tests. The spread of their
results is too large and can't be narrowed down in a reasonable amount
of time in the warm-up phase.
- The tests start an unconfigurable prometheus endpoint inside, which
causes errors because they use the same 9999 port. I disable it with a
flag, but I think it's better to extract the endpoint launching outside
the test, as we already do with `valgrind` and `pyroscope`. But we still
use `prometheus` inside the tests.

### Future work
* #3528
* #3529
* #3530
* #3531

---------

Co-authored-by: Alexander Samusev <[email protected]>
skunert pushed a commit to skunert/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Mar 4, 2024
…paritytech#3311)

### What's been done
- `subsystem-bench` has been split into two parts: a cli benchmark
runner and a library.
- The cli runner is quite simple. It just allows us to run `.yaml` based
test sequences. Now it should only be used to run benchmarks during
development.
- The library is used in the cli runner and in regression tests. Some
code is changed to make the library independent of the runner.
- Added first regression tests for availability read and write that
replicate existing test sequences.

### How we run regression tests
- Regression tests are simply rust integration tests without the
harnesses.
- They should only be compiled under the `subsystem-benchmarks` feature
to prevent them from running with other tests.
- This doesn't work when running tests with `nextest` in CI, so
additional filters have been added to the `nextest` runs.
- Each benchmark run takes a different time in the beginning, so we
"warm up" the tests until their CPU usage differs by only 1%.
- After the warm-up, we run the benchmarks a few more times and compare
the average with the exception using a precision.

### What is still wrong?
- I haven't managed to set up approval voting tests. The spread of their
results is too large and can't be narrowed down in a reasonable amount
of time in the warm-up phase.
- The tests start an unconfigurable prometheus endpoint inside, which
causes errors because they use the same 9999 port. I disable it with a
flag, but I think it's better to extract the endpoint launching outside
the test, as we already do with `valgrind` and `pyroscope`. But we still
use `prometheus` inside the tests.

### Future work
* paritytech#3528
* paritytech#3529
* paritytech#3530
* paritytech#3531

---------

Co-authored-by: Alexander Samusev <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T12-benchmarks This PR/Issue is related to benchmarking and weights.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant