similar to: LNT Server offline

I don’t have access to that server. I have been using a cloud LNT instance for the performance runs on the green-dragon cluster. So far it has provided 100% uptime! http://llvm-lnt.herokuapp.com <http://llvm-lnt.herokuapp.com/> > On Nov 24, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > On 24.11.2014 23:54, Galina Kistanova wrote: >> Hello

Great, good to know it's not just a problem with our bot. Thanks! On 28 August 2017 at 16:24, Chris Matthews <cmatthews5 at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Diana, > > I have seen that issue on some other bots too. I will fix it this week. It is something about how MySQL treats character encodings differently than Postgres. We are checking for the value in the table beforehand, and this

Hello build bot owners! The staging master is ready. Please feel free to use it to make sure your bots would work well with the monorepo and github. The following builders could be configured to build monorepo: * clang-atom-d525-fedora-rel * clang-native-arm-lnt-perf * clang-cmake-armv7-lnt * clang-cmake-armv7-selfhost-neon * clang-cmake-armv7-quick * clang-cmake-armv7-global-isel *

Hi, I have recently moved the clang-native-arm-lnt-perf bot from the nt producer to the test-suite producer. It seems to be working fine but it doesn't manage to submit the results to http://lnt.llvm.org/submitRun. If you scroll down to the bottom of [1], you can see this error message: 2017-08-28 07:06:32: submitting result to 'http://lnt.llvm.org/submitRun' error: lnt server:

Hi Galina, It seems that our libcxx bots are now triggering builds for any changes to llvm: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-libunwind-aarch64-linux/builds/2434 Should I file a bug report for this? Thanks, Diana On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 11:36, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > The staging master is

On 19 February 2013 15:16, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > Do you have a base run with vectorization turned off? So we could see > where we are degrading things? > I wanted to, but after a few failed attempts, I couldn't pass the option to clang to disable vectorization. I don't want to make Galina reconfig the master every time, so I set up a

I think what she is referring to was that the build seemed to be triggered by a commit to a project that shouldn't trigger builds on a libcxx bot (i.e. the change was in llvm). I have a somewhat orthogonal but related question. In the past, commits to compiler-rt did not trigger builds on llvm/clang/sanitizer bots. Has this behaviour been rectified with the move to github? I am really sorry

Hi James/Chris, You guys have done this before, so I'm guessing you can help me understand what's going on. If my buildbot config is: jobs=2, nt_flags=['--cflag', '-mcpu=cortex-a15', '--use-perf', '--threads=1', '--build-threads=4'] It uses -j4 for build, -j2 for running the tests:

Hi folks, I got ISE when submitting the LNT logs to perf: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-lnt/builds/4663/steps/lnt.nightly-test/logs/stdio I think this is the first time that I get this, is there something happening to the server? Can I disable submitting the results? I don't really care much about the performance of those runs, since that's just the conformance

Hi Folks, Looks like our LNT ARM buildbot with the vectorizer is running and producing good results. There are only 11 failures: FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg.execution_time (1 of 1104) FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan.execution_time (2 of 1104) FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon.execution_time (3 of 1104) FAIL:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 19 February 2013 15:16, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > >> Do you have a base run with vectorization turned off? So we could see >> where we are degrading things? >> > > I wanted to, but after a few failed attempts, I couldn't pass the option

Hi, The new LNT server instance http://lnt.llvm.org seems to fail in many cases. Any entrance to a 'Run page' (e.g. http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/62475) and lately also many perf bots result submissions (e.g. http://lab.llvm.org:8014/builders/clang-native-arm-lnt-perf/builds/2262/steps/test-suite/logs/stdio ) fails with: "500 Internal Server Error". Any ideas? Thanks,

Thanks a lot for setting this up! By using the "mean as aggregation" option one can see the noise in the results better: http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?switch_min_mean=yes&moving_window_size=10&plot.9=1.9.7&submit=Update There are a few benchmarknig tips in https://www.llvm.org/docs/Benchmarking.html. For example, from looking at

The run page problem were triggered by one of my commits (sorry) and should be mitigated now, see the thread at http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115971.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115971.html> I don't know about the submission problems, could they just an occasional network problem or are they a common phenomenon? Chris did some

Hello George, Sorry, somehow hit a send button too soon. Please ignore the previous e-mail. The bot does 10 runs for each of the benchmarks (those dots in the logs are meaningful). We can increase the number of runs if proven that this would significantly increase the accuracy. I didn't see the increase in accuracy when have been staging the bot, which would justify the extra time and larger

I will take a peek at the server log. On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 01/17/2014 01:07 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 01/17/2014 12:59 AM, Chris Matthews wrote: >>> Do you guys have examples of a LNT results file that causes the failure? >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> thanks for the quick reply. Here a link

Hi folks, It seems all LNT buildbots are broken due to the error: error: The 'six==1.9.0' distribution was not found and is required by LNT The module seems to be in version 1.10 and probably the old binary is no longer there. Do we really need it to be 1.9? Can't that be >1.9? cheers, --renato

>Hello everyone, > >I have added a new public LLD performance builder at >http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-perf-testsuite. >It builds LLVM and LLD by the latest releaed Clang and runs a set of >perfromance tests. > >The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. > >The performance statistics are here:

Hello everyone, We are in the middle of porting the majority of zorg to GitHub/monorepo. The following build factories will be ported and if you use one of those for your bots, you are all covered: * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeBuildFactory (31 bots) * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeGCSBuildFactory (2 bots) * LibcxxAndAbiBuilder (23 bots) * SphinxDocsBuilder (7 bots) * UnifiedTreeBuilder (11

Hi Renato, I noticed the bot yesterday. Thanks for working on this! On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Looks like our LNT ARM buildbot with the vectorizer is running and producing good results. Do you have a base run with vectorization turned off? So we could see where we are degrading things? When you say good