1395067 - 1.19 - 8.35% build times / installer size (linux32, linux64, osx-cross, windows2012-32) regression on push 9b80c62b2cbd327b0b3781c11baa513ea3fe7fa1 (Tue Aug 29 2017)

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Core :: Networking: JAR, defect)

Description

[Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan]]

We have detected a build metrics regression from push:

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/pushloghtml?changeset=9b80c62b2cbd327b0b3781c11baa513ea3fe7fa1

As author of one of the patches included in that push, we need your help to address this regression.

Regressions:

  8%  build times summary windows2012-32 pgo taskcluster-c4.4xlarge     4,663.68 -> 5,053.28
  2%  installer size summary linux64 pgo                                61,974,886.08 -> 63,415,203.83
  2%  installer size summary linux32 pgo                                63,027,987.25 -> 64,426,461.50
  1%  installer size summary osx-cross opt                              65,259,245.92 -> 66,034,074.17

Improvements:

  1%  installer size summary windows2012-32 pgo      55,052,202.67 -> 54,323,836.33
  1%  installer size summary windows2012-64 pgo      59,132,794.58 -> 58,420,127.92


You can find links to graphs and comparison views for each of the above tests at: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=9059

On the page above you can see an alert for each affected platform as well as a link to a graph showing the history of scores for this test. There is also a link to a treeherder page showing the jobs in a pushlog format.

To learn more about the regressing test(s), please see: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/Automated_Performance_Testing_and_Sheriffing/Build_Metrics

Comment 1

[Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan]]

Mike, I see you are the owner of bug 1352595. Can we resolve these build regressions? Or should we accept them?

Comment 2

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Bug 1352595 is, at the moment, an experiment and does not ride the trains. The build time regressions are a known problem that was not worth addressing before even knowing if we'd like this to ever ride the trains. The installer size regressions are kinda sorta expected, and there are probably things we improve there. But for now, I'm going to WONTFIX this.

Relatedly, the improvements are wrong, cf. bug 1394902 (see bug 1352595 comment 27)