Results of profiling parallel tests (was Re:  grep in scalar context doesn't short-circuit (it can' t - side effects) so the)
nick at ccl4.org
Sat Aug 30 22:12:59 UTC 2008
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from Nicholas Clark
> # on Saturday 30 August 2008 14:48:
> >ie time spent in the gubbins of the parallel test job scheduler has
> > dropped from "lots" to "bugger all".
> ...and there was much rejoicing.
> Where does that put you on the cpu vs wallclock compared to the serial
Files=1553, Tests=202384, 222 wallclock secs (33.37 usr 11.58 sys + 251.99 cusr 49.48 csys = 346.42 CPU)
Files=1553, Tests=202384, 545 wallclock secs (31.38 usr 9.62 sys + 273.33 cusr 51.77 csys = 366.10 CPU)
Failed 3/1553 test programs. 3/202384 subtests failed.
(FAIL is the 3 Module::Build tests)
Um, so I'm actually using less CPU running the tests in parallel?
If so, that seems rather good.
More information about the tapx-dev