From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: KCIDB contribuition #KCIDB References: <5d6fbc94-bdfd-9822-3bb0-0502751294b0@redhat.com> From: "Nikolai Kondrashov" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:51:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-ID: To: kernelci@groups.io, santiago.esteban@microchip.com, guillaume.tucker@collabora.com On 2/24/21 11:42 AM, Santiago.Esteban via info via groups.io wrote: > On 22/2/21 11:31, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know >> the content is safe >> >> On 2/22/21 12:25 PM, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >>> On 22/02/2021 09:41, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >>>> I suppose if you already drive everything with an instance of KernelCI >>>> infrastructure, you can just use the KCIDB interface code that was >>>> merged >>>> there. However, I think Guillaume would be able to help you better >>>> here. >>>> >>>> Guillaume, do you think that would work? >>> >>> The production instance of kernelci.org is not submitting data to >>> KCIDB yet because of the overhead related to opening BigQuery >>> connections.  Until the work to use the streaming interface with >>> a persistent connection is implemented, and potentially a more >>> longer-term implementation is in place (i.e. not doing it in >>> kernelci-backend), I would not recommend doing that. >> >> Yeah, the current implementation would be bogged down by the amount of >> results KernelCI production is producing. However, Santiago, how many >> builds/tests do you see produced per day? Perhaps it's worth a try >> to see how that's handled, and maybe it's not too bad? Meanwhile >> Michal could perhaps finish the rework needed for faster streaming? >> >> Nick >> > Our CI right now focus on daily builds of  linux-next and linux-mainline > repositories with only two targets (sama5_defconf, at91_dt_defconf): 4 > builds tested in 7 boards (and two compilers) = 56 results daily. > > I guess, not a lot, considering the amount of data that bigger CI's > farms produce. Yeah, that's not much, and you could probably manage with the current KCIDB-submission code in kernelci. However, if you're going to have your lab connected anyway soon, the setup effort might not be worth it. Nick