Test larger runners #632
Closed
Test larger runners #632
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: egibs <[email protected]>
egibs
force-pushed
the
larger-runners
branch
from
fceadad to
ac47de3
Compare
Signed-off-by: egibs <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: egibs <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: egibs <[email protected]>
egibs
force-pushed
the
larger-runners
branch
from
310617b to
368085c
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Using this PR to test 8- and 16-core runners now that our tests scale with core count. These are rough estimates since I haven't performed multiple runs on each size.
4-core (previous PR with the fix to actually run most of our scanning tests in parallel):
8-core:
16-core ARM:
16-core:
64-cores; definitely hitting diminishing returns:
8 cores seems to be the best tradeoff between performance and cost.