Skip to content
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.

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

continuous performance testing #42

Open
mlubin opened this issue Sep 21, 2013 · 12 comments
Open

continuous performance testing #42

mlubin opened this issue Sep 21, 2013 · 12 comments
Milestone

Comments

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Sep 21, 2013

Codespeed?

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Sep 21, 2013

Would be nice! More to detect errant Julia changes than our own, perhaps

@joehuchette
Copy link
Contributor

Could we incorporate this into the Travis builds somehow?

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Feb 25, 2014

Not really, travis runs on shared VMs so it will be hard to get consistent results.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Oct 2, 2015

Ping @jrevels, JuMP would benefit a lot from this

@jrevels
Copy link
Contributor

jrevels commented Oct 2, 2015

Literally was just talking to folks at Julia Central about CI perf testing today, going to be experimenting with writing webhooks to do this in the coming week(s). I'll definitely keep you posted.

@pkofod
Copy link

pkofod commented Dec 22, 2016

pinging @mlubin @jrevels did you ever figure out how to do this in a clever way?

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Dec 22, 2016

@pkofod, there was never any substantial effort put into this

mlubin pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2018
* upgrade to ForwardDiff v0.5.0

* fix Julia/Travis versions in REQUIRE

* fix DualNumbers.Dual constructors in tests

* upper-bound ForwardDiff at next minor version just to be safe
@odow odow added this to the 1.x milestone Oct 25, 2021
@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Feb 3, 2022

This came up on Gitter today, so I did some investigating:

I don't think we want to run the benchmarks on every commit. That'd get a bit painful. We probably just want each commit to master and the ability to run on-demand for a PR.

For the benchmarks, we probably want:

This could all sit in a new repository (JuMPBenchmarks.jl) and push to a GitHub page with plots like

So in summary, I think we have a lot of what is needed. It just needs some plumbing to put together. There is also the question of dedicated hardware for this. But I can probably be persuaded to get a small PC to sit in the corner of my office as a space-heater during winter.

@ericphanson
Copy link
Contributor

ericphanson commented Feb 3, 2022

https://github.com/jump-dev/Convex.jl/tree/master/benchmark

This may have bitrotted unfortunately; we used the run benchmarks in CI, but I never remembered to look at the results (hidden in the Travis logs, at the time), so I removed it (or perhaps just didn’t replace it when we switched to GitHub Actions). It also slowed down CI a lot. That code was based off of @tkf’s, and he likely has better versions these days (maybe https://github.com/JuliaFolds/Transducers.jl/tree/master/benchmark).

So I agree also with not running it per-commit. Could be useful for it to be runnable on-demand in a PR like nanosoldier for Julia Base, so if you suspect a chance could cause a regression then you can trigger it.

It might be useful to look at how SciML does their benchmarks too: https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl. It looks also like there’s some “juliaecosystem” hardware; perhaps JuMP can get access too: https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl/blob/bda2ca650fd4fbd25e3bcdc0ddb4b43535bcd7b6/.buildkite/run_benchmark.yml#L50 (I’ve got no idea though).

@tkf
Copy link

tkf commented Feb 3, 2022

FYI, there's a setting to run the benchmark with label. Take a look at the setting with if: contains(github.event.pull_request.labels.*.name, 'run benchmark') in https://github.com/tkf/BenchmarkCI.jl#create-a-workflow-file-required (thanks to @johnnychen94; ref tkf/BenchmarkCI.jl#65)

As for my recent approach, I mostly moved to set up a benchmark suite for smoke test (e.g., take only one sample) and then invoking it from the test. It's not actually continuous performance testing but rather for just avoid breaking benchmark code. But I still find it useful.

@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Feb 3, 2022

Ideally once JuMP 1.0 is released, we wouldn't have to worry about breaking any benchmarks. (And if we did, that's an indication that we've done something wrong!)

There are some Julia servers for the GPU and SciML stuff that host jobs on build kite (we use one for running the SCS GPU tests). Their benchmarks are pretty heavy though. I'm envisaging some much smaller runs, so we don't need a beefy machine.

@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented May 6, 2022

Made progress here: https://github.com/jump-dev/benchmarks

Dashboard is available at https://jump.dev/benchmarks/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants