ci: increase CPU count of sanitizer job to increase memory limit #21609

1. 
   fanquake commented at 0:43 am on April 6, 2021: member

   According to the docs:

   For each CPU you can’t get more than 4G of memory.

   thus if we want this job to have 24GB of memory, we need to increase the CPU count to 6.

   It’s currently failing with:

   Requested memory is too high! You can request at most 4G per CPU

2. ci: increase CPU count of sanitizer job to increase memory limit

   According to the docs,
   https://cirrus-ci.org/guide/linux/#linux-containers, "For each CPU you
   can't get more than 4G of memory.", thus if we want this job to have
   24GB of memory, we need to increase the CPU count to 6.

   de3ae78eff
3. fanquake added the label Tests on Apr 6, 2021
4. 
   hebasto commented at 0:45 am on April 6, 2021: member

   … if we want this job to have 24GB of memory, we need to increase the CPU count to 6.

   … or use Compute Credits.

5. 
   sipa commented at 1:02 am on April 6, 2021: member

   ACK if CI is happy with this
6. 
   fanquake commented at 4:46 am on April 6, 2021: member

   if CI is happy with this

   CI seems to be happy enough to not insta-fail due to mis-configuration. The failing job (not modified here) has timed out after 2 hours:

   #12646 INITED cov: 19489 ft: 128011 corp: 3594/4992Kb exec/s: 49 rss: 835Mb #12646 DONE cov: 19489 ft: 128011 corp: 3594/4992Kb lim: 598770 exec/s: 49 rss: 835Mb Done 12646 runs in 257 second(s)

   Timed out!

7. 
   sipa commented at 4:49 am on April 6, 2021: member

   Should we split up the fuzz job into two?
8. MarcoFalke merged this on Apr 6, 2021
9. MarcoFalke closed this on Apr 6, 2021

   ---

10. fanquake deleted the branch on Apr 6, 2021
11. 
    practicalswift commented at 8:48 am on April 6, 2021: contributor

    @sipa If we want to speed up the fuzz job another route could be to simply remove large inputs which don’t contribute to increased coverage. I think many (all?) of the very large inputs were added to the qa-assets repo by mistake, not that they added coverage historically :)

    See the open issue https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets/issues/56: “Consider removing unnecessarily large inputs which are causing excessive corpus processing runtime”.

12. DrahtBot locked this on Aug 18, 2022

Contributors
fanquake hebasto sipa practicalswift

Labels
Tests