See the following links for Medication Guides: Injection Medication Guide & Tablets Medication Guide
We recently got useful feedback that remote cache performance should not be judged mainly by large artifact upload and download speeds.
For builds with a high cache hit rate, Action Cache lookup latency may matter more because Bazel can perform a large number of relatively small lookups, while many intermediate CAS outputs are never downloaded.
We’re putting together a benchmark plan and currently considering:
-
Cold and warm Action Cache lookups
-
p50, p95, and p99 latency
-
Throughput under concurrent actions
-
Performance with thousands of small actions
-
Large CAS uploads and downloads
-
Builds from different geographic regions
-
HTTP connection reuse
-
Cache hit rate compared with total build time saved
-
Performance when only top-level outputs are downloaded
A few questions for people operating Bazel at scale:
What does a representative benchmark build look like?
Which numbers would you need before trusting a remote cache for production workloads?
Is there an AC lookup latency where remote caching starts doing more harm than good?
How important is gRPC support compared with a well-performing HTTP cache?
Disclosure: We’re the team behind Cachely. We currently support Bazel’s HTTP remote cache protocol and are investigating gRPC support. There is no product link here. We’re trying to make sure we benchmark the right things before publishing performance claims.
