On Oct 25, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Josh Hursey wrote:
> The discussion started with the bug characteristics of v1.2 versus
> the trunk.
> It seemed from the call that IU was the only institution that can
> asses this via MTT as noone else spoke up. Since people were
> interested in seeing things that were breaking I suggested that I
> start forwarding the IU internal MTT reports (run nightly and
> weekly) to the testing_at_open-mpi.org. This was meet by Brain
> insisting that it would result in "thousands" of emails to the
> development list. I clarified that it is only 3 - 4 messages a day
> from IU. However if all other institutions do this then it would be
> a bunch of email (where 'a bunch' would still be less than
> 'thousands'). That's how we got to a 'we need a single summary
> presented to the group' comment. It should be noted that we brought
> up IU sending to the 'testing_at_[hidden]' list as a bandaid until
> MTT could do it better.
How about sending them to me and Ethan?
> This single summary can be email or a webpage that people can
> check. Rich said that he would prefer a webpage, and noone else
> really had a comment. That got us talking about the current summary
> page that MTT generates. Tim M mentioned that the current website
> is difficult to figure out how to get the answers you need. I
> agree, it is hard [usability] for someone to go to the summary page
> and answer the question "So what failed from IU last night, and how
> does that differ from Yesterday -- e.g., what regressed and
> progressed yesterday at IU?". The website is flexible enough to due
> it, but having a couple of basic summary pages would be nice for
> basic users. What that should look like we can discuss further.
Agreed; we aren't super-fond of the current web page, either. Do you
guys want to have a teleconf to go over the current status of MTT,
where you want it to go, etc.? I consider IU's input here quite
important, since you're the ones pushing the boundaries, flexing
MTT's muscles, etc.
> The IU group really likes the emails that we currently generate. A
> plain-text summary of the previous run. I posted copies on the MTT
> bug tracker here:
> Currently we have not put the work in to aggregate the runs, so for
> each ini file that we run we get 1 email to the IU group. This is
> fine for the moment, but as we add the rest of the clusters and
> dimensions in the testing matrix we will need MTT to aggregate the
> results for us and generate such an email.
We created another ticket yesterday to make a new MTT Reporter (our
internal plugins) that duplicates this output format. It actually
shouldn't be that hard -- we don't have to do parsing to get the
numbers that you're reporting; we have access to the actual data. So
it's mostly caching the data, calculating the totals that you're
calculating, and printing in your output format.
Ethan has some other short tasks to do before he gets to this, but
its near the top of the priority list. You can see the current
workflow on the wiki (this is a living document; it keeps changing as
requirements, etc. change):
> So I think the general feel of the discussion is that we need the
> following from MTT:
> - A 'basic' summary page providing answers to some general
> frequently asked queries. The current interface is too advanced for
> the current users.
We have the summary.php page, but I personally have never found it
too useful. :-)
We're getting towards a full revamp of reporter.php (got some other
tasks to complete first, but we're definitely starting to think about
it) -- got any ideas / input? Our "haven't thought about it much
yet" idea is to be more menu/Q-A driven with a few common queries
easily available (rather than a huge, complicated single screen).
> - A summary email [in plain-text preferably] similar to the one
> that IU generated showing an aggregation of the previous nights
> results for (a) all reporters (b) my institution [so I can track
> them down and file bugs].
For the moment, we don't have the dynamic capability for you to login
to the web page, create a report, and say "mail this to me nightly".
However, Ethan can make up custom reports on the server quite easily
-- if you want some IU-specific reports, just file a ticket and Ethan
can Make It So.
> - 1 email a day on the previous nights testing results.
That's what we intended for the mails that are coming today, but it
seemed to not be sufficient -- we ended up with 4 nightly mails, one
for each relevant phase failures and a 4th for showing stderr of mpi
> Some relevant bugs currently in existence:
> The other concern is that given the frequency of testing as bugs
> appear from the testing someone needs to make sure the bug tracker
> is updated. I think the group is unclear about how this is done.
> Meaning when a MTT identifies a test as failed whom is responsible
> for putting the bug in the bug tracker?
At the moment, I've been manually examining the mails every day and
firing off e-mails to those responsible. However, due to travel last
week and this week, I've gotten quite behind. :-(
> The obvious solution is the institution that identified the bug.
> [Warning: My opinion] But then that becomes unwieldy for IU since
> we have a large testing matrix, and would need to commit someone to
> doing this everyday (and it may take all day to properly track a
> set of bugs). Also this kind of punishes an institution for testing
> more instead of providing incentive to test.
True. I don't know the proper answer to this, either -- I know the
"Jeff look at e-mail" solution doesn't scale well.
> ------ Page Break -- Context switch ------
> In case you all want to know what we are doing here at IU. I
> attached to this email our planed MTT testing matrix. Currently we
> have BigRed and Odin running the complete matrix less the BLACS
> tests. Wotan and Thor will come online as we get more resources to
> support them.
> In order to do such a complex testing matrix we have various .ini
> files that we use. And since some of the dimensions in the matrix
> are large we break some of the tests into a couple .ini files that
> are submitted concurrently to have them run in a reasonable time.
I would like to schedule some phone time with you guys and Ethan and
me to talk about what's working, what's not working, etc. One
obvious question I have is: is the INI config file format suitable?
Do we need to do something more complex that would allow
consolidation of your various configurations? ...etc.
Server Virtualization Business Unit