Skip to content

Remove @avoid_ci from stress tests #6271

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
crusaderky wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Remove @avoid_ci from stress tests #6271

crusaderky wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@crusaderky
Copy link
Collaborator

@crusaderky crusaderky commented May 4, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Currently crashes also in the case without AMM. I believe this is due to having 10 nannies on 2-4 CPUs.

crusaderky
crusaderky commented May 4, 2022
View reviewed changes
distributed/tests/test_steal.py Outdated
@pytest.mark.slow
@pytest.mark.parametrize("TEMPstress", range(10))
@gen_cluster(client=True, nthreads=[("", 1)] * 2)
async def test_steal_expensive_data_slow_computation(c, s, a, b, TEMPstress):
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@crusaderky crusaderky May 4, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this test requires 168 MB RAM (8 * 21); it's well within the capability of our CI hosts

@crusaderky crusaderky self-assigned this May 4, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 5, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Unit Test Results

  10 files   -          5    10 suites   - 5   1h 52m 4s ⏱️ - 4h 58m 35s
152 tests  -   2 623  120 ✔️  -   2 574  4 💤  -   75  28 ❌ +26 
622 runs   - 19 965  561 ✔️  - 19 118  4 💤  - 902  57 ❌ +55 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit b1d9207. ± Comparison against base commit 50d2911.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@crusaderky crusaderky force-pushed the amm_avoid_ci branch 3 times, most recently from d16c4d1 to 2d8fd6f Compare May 11, 2022 14:26
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 11, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Unit Test Results

See test report for an extended history of previous test failures. This is useful for diagnosing flaky tests.

    8 files   -          7      8 suites   - 7   3h 13m 34s ⏱️ - 3h 18m 10s
157 tests  -   2 928  133 ✔️  -   2 866  2 💤  -   83  22 ❌ +21 
673 runs   - 22 154  619 ✔️  - 21 222  4 💤  - 981  50 ❌ +49 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 8e4248d. ± Comparison against base commit a5d6865.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@crusaderky crusaderky force-pushed the amm_avoid_ci branch 2 times, most recently from 4ebcacf to 910e8d3 Compare June 13, 2022 10:15
@crusaderky crusaderky closed this Jun 13, 2022
@crusaderky crusaderky reopened this Jun 13, 2022
@crusaderky crusaderky mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2022
Closed
@crusaderky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

crusaderky commented Jun 15, 2022

Currently crashes also in the case without AMM. I believe this is due to having 10 nannies on 2-4 CPUs.

@crusaderky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

crusaderky commented Jun 15, 2022

Note that #6577 will allow this PR to just switch to Workers from Nannies, which should solve the problem while still testing all the AMM machinery. It will not solve the more generic #5371.

@crusaderky crusaderky mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2022
Open
@crusaderky crusaderky mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2022
Merged
@crusaderky crusaderky force-pushed the amm_avoid_ci branch 3 times, most recently from cdf48a2 to 8d6483a Compare August 31, 2022 14:32
@crusaderky crusaderky mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2022
Merged
@crusaderky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

crusaderky commented Sep 24, 2022

Superseded by #7062

@crusaderky crusaderky closed this Sep 24, 2022
@crusaderky crusaderky deleted the amm_avoid_ci branch September 24, 2022 19:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@fjetter fjetter Awaiting requested review from fjetter fjetter will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review fjetter is a code owner

Assignees

@crusaderky crusaderky

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@crusaderky