Juju landing is now faster (unless it isn't)

[John Meinel]

Thats a huge win, great to hear. Would we consider doing a static instance?
We could potentially isolate it in an LXC container so that we don't get a
lot of cross pollution, and being able to cut out 5min of overhead is 30%
of the time spent.

John
=:->


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ian Booth <ian.booth at canonical.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> There have been a few fixes landed by different people to address various
> intermittent test failures. These were present before the cut over, but
> seem to
> show up more when the tests are run on EC2 rather than Canonistack.
>
> After a little experimentation, plus switching the EC2 instance type from
> m1.xlarge to m3.xlarge, it seems we are able to get the tests running more
> reliably with full parallelisation.
>
> Approx timing:
> - start ephemeral instance, ready to run tests: 5 minutes
> - run tests: 11 minutes
>
> There's still the safety net of running the tests serially if the first run
> fails. But hopefully landing pull requests will be faster overall.
>
> We'll monitor the situation and make adjustments as necessary. I expect
> we'll
> still see some intermittent failures with parallelisation due to our
> ongoing
> mongo / repliaset test flakiness. But progress is being made...
>
>
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140605/7bb7ed6a/attachment.html>