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

C/S: Try with fewer CPUs and more memory #104

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 22, 2024
Merged

Conversation

kcreekdev
Copy link
Contributor

There are still some memory issues. I'm trying with fewer CPUs and explicitly setting how much memory is used per worker. This may cause some issues with GitHub Actions depending on how much cpu/memory the servers have.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Apr 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.41%. Comparing base (e4655db) to head (48614e3).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #104   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   75.41%   75.41%           
=======================================
  Files          11       11           
  Lines         850      850           
=======================================
  Hits          641      641           
  Misses        209      209           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 75.41% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@kcreekdev
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jdebacker Got success with this configuration. I'm trying with the transition path now.

@kcreekdev kcreekdev changed the title [WIP] C/S: Try with fewer CPUs and more memory C/S: Try with fewer CPUs and more memory Apr 21, 2024
@kcreekdev
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jdebacker , this should be good to go now that the format issues are fixed. I'll let you know what happens with the transition path results.

@jdebacker
Copy link
Member

@kcreekdev Let me know when this is ready to merge.

@jdebacker jdebacker merged commit 4e1605e into master Apr 22, 2024
10 checks passed
@jdebacker jdebacker deleted the reduce-num_workers branch April 22, 2024 20:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants