Skip to content

Conversation

@michaelmckinsey1
Copy link
Collaborator

@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 commented May 22, 2025

Description

  • Instead of cloning from the internet, clone from local bootstrap for benchpark workspaces.
  • Enable setting an upstream in RuntimeResources, explicitly connecting the bootstrapped spack/ramble and workspace spack/ramble.
    • Upstream set in benchpark setup ... (setup.py, when benchpark workspace is created, so bootstrap created by previous command no longer required, as it will be created here if it does not exist.
    • Use upstream to bootstrap (if instance does not have an upstream bootstrapping will occur).
    • Upstream uses remote url for clone, "origin" uses local upstream repository to clone.
  • Refactor remote urls logically similar to hash versions.

Cloning Performance improvement

local performance ~8x

develop - benchpark setup ...
real    0m55.378s
user    0m25.981s
sys     0m20.266s

#784 - benchpark setup ...
real    0m7.611s
user    0m4.146s
sys     0m5.958s

dane performance ~2x

develop - benchpark setup ...
real    4m33.224s
user    0m50.784s
sys     0m23.990s

#784 - benchpark setup ...
real    2m14.887s
user    0m4.101s
sys     0m9.247s

Adding/modifying core functionality, CI, or documentation:

  • Update lib/benchpark/runtime.py

@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 self-assigned this May 22, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added the feature New feature or request label May 22, 2025
@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 changed the title [WIP] Clone from local bootstrap [WIP] Clone From Local Bootstrap to Speedup benchpark setup May 22, 2025
@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 changed the title [WIP] Clone From Local Bootstrap to Speedup benchpark setup Clone From Local Bootstrap to Speedup benchpark setup May 22, 2025
@michaelmckinsey1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This would supersede #667, as far as a solution for speeding up benchpark setup

@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 added ideas Trying out how one might implement new features and removed ideas Trying out how one might implement new features labels May 22, 2025
@michaelmckinsey1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

michaelmckinsey1 commented May 28, 2025

Tioga CI failure unrelated, will be fixed by #770

Copy link
Collaborator

@scheibelp scheibelp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Refactoring request: let me know if it makes sense and is agreeable.

@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 force-pushed the clone-local branch 2 times, most recently from 483f869 to 68e6935 Compare May 28, 2025 20:40
@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 added the ready for review Ready for review label Jun 4, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@scheibelp scheibelp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A couple of requests/questions

@github-actions github-actions bot added the ci CI, unit tests, GitHub actions label Jun 10, 2025
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 12, 2025

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

@michaelmckinsey1 michaelmckinsey1 requested a review from pearce8 June 13, 2025 00:35
@scheibelp scheibelp added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 13, 2025
Merged via the queue into develop with commit 43756f6 Jun 13, 2025
30 of 31 checks passed
@scheibelp scheibelp deleted the clone-local branch June 13, 2025 00:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ci CI, unit tests, GitHub actions feature New feature or request ready for review Ready for review

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants