> -----Original Message-----
> From: mtt-users-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:mtt-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andrew Friedley
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:10 AM
> To: General user list for the MPI Testing Tool
> Subject: Re: [MTT users] Test output to perfbase
> > - I know you sent one before, but I've made a mess of managing huge
> > volumes of mail with Outlook, and I can't find the example
> you sent of
> > the format that perfbase is expecting for all the test run
> results. Can
> > you send the example again? This is the
> > vs. send-one-result-at-a-time issue.
> I can't find it, is this recent or from a long time ago?
Ok, so maybe I'm didn't lose as much mail as I thought. :-)
I'll change my question to: can you send an example of the format that
perfbase is expecting for submitting the data running multiple tests in
a single http post to perfbase.php? E.g., say I have the results of
running all the intel tests -- what is the format that you are
Another question -- how exactly are you categorizing these results on
the server? You made mention of "runs" below -- from your context I'm
assuming that "run" has some specific meaning to perfbase, especially
with the categorization of output data.
For example, let's say I have the following exec in my MPI Details
exec = mpirun --mca &enumerate("tcp","openib"),self -np &test_np() \
This will generate two mpirun command lines for every test executable
(one for tcp,self and one for openib,self). Would you consider the tcp
outputs a different "run" than the openib outputs?
Regardless of the terminology, I eventually want to be able to query for
tcp run data separately from the openib run data. I'm assuming that
this has a big impact on how we submit data to perfbase. I see two
1. send all results from the above intel run in a single submit (i.e.,
all tcp and all openib results). Since we submit the MCA params as part
of the data, our queries later can distinguish tcp vs. openib data.
2. send all the tcp results in one submit and then send the openib data
in a separate submit.
I assume that there are storage and/or query efficiency issues with this
decision. We can do either of these groupings in the client -- which
should we use?
> > - Apache is going to have a max upload size (2MB? I always
> forget what
> > milliways is configured for). The client will need to be
> able to split
> > up results that are larger than this. This has two implications:
> > 1. If a single report is larger than this size (e.g., if
> the output from
> > an "install MPI" phase is larger than the max upload size),
> Badness will
> > ensure. I don't quite know how to handle this.
> Make the max upload size bigger :)
More on this below.
> > 2. In the test run phase, given that we're switching to
> sending all the
> > output from each test individually to sending them all at
> once, if the
> > total size of a given report is larger than the max limit, can I
> > arbitrarily split up the output results and send them in <max_size
> > chunks? (preserving header/data groupings, of course) I'm assuming
> > yes, but just wanted to make sure.
> Not sure. I think this will work, but it should be avoided.
> With how
> things are now, this is going to generate a run per
> submission, and the
> whole point of sending test results all at once is to
> consolidate them
> into one run. Not the best, but not the end of the world either.
I'm not sure I follow this (again, I think you have some special meaning
for the word "run" -- can you explain?). What are the benefits /
drawbacks of sending in a single submit vs. multiple submits?
> Though I think it's possible for us to collect several files on the
> server side before submitting them to perfbase as one single run.
> Problem is, that's going to be a lot of work on the server side.
Depends on how it's done. It doesn't have to be too much work or too
> Depending on how the apache limit is enforced, this would involve
> writing files to storage or preserving the data between HTTP POSTs in
> some way.
Apache enforces the limit by effectively terminating the input (it might
even close the socket? I don't remember offhand). Suffice it to say
that whatever the mechanism, we can't go over the limit.
I have some thoughts on this, but I'll start another thread for it.
Server Virtualization Business Unit