|
|
Issue 0056 in split format
- Summary
- Benchmark.bonnie omits results for some targets
; Owner: Tim
; Reporter: ???
; Status: open
; Priority: medium
|
; Summary: Benchmark.bonnie omits results for some targets
; Owner: Tim
; Reporter: ???
; Status: open
; Priority: medium
|
|
|
= Description =
When bonnie has a result for some operation that is less than .5, it omits the result from its output, replacing it with either "+++++" or "+++".
|
|
It is hard to predict when this will occur. Depending on which result has this
issue, the parser.py may choke on the data.
|
It is hard to predict when this will occur. Depending on which result has this
issue, the parser.py may choke on the data.
|
|
There is now a spec called 'more-data', which provides more data for the
machine to parse, but I suspect the issue is more complicated than just
adding more files will fix. I believe it may be an issue with the Linux
file cache being too big for the test, and reads coming back nearly
instantaneously. (But if that were the case, what value is coming back
less than .5???)
|
There is now a spec called 'more-data', which provides more data for the
machine to parse, but I suspect the issue is more complicated than just
adding more files will fix. I believe it may be an issue with the Linux
file cache being too big for the test, and reads coming back nearly
instantaneously. (But if that were the case, what value is coming back
less than .5???)
|
|
Anyway, it needs more investigation.
|
Anyway, it needs more investigation.
|
|
At a minimum the parser or criteria evaluator should not fall over when data is missing.
|
At a minimum the parser or criteria evaluator should not fall over when data is missing.
|
|
|
= Notes =
Reported by Dhinakar in October 2017 - see list for logs of tests that exhibit this problem.
|
- backlink
Fuego Issues List
|
; backlink: [[Fuego Issues List]]
|
|
|