jonathanmetzman

I started experiments for AFL++ and fastcgs with and without huge page tables.

> I started experiments for AFL++ and fastcgs with and without huge page tables. Experiments are done. https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/2020-05-01-fastcgs/index.html compared versions of fastcgs with support for huge page tables and without....

I'm starting to work on using resources more intelligently in experiments (particularly for fuzzer variants or features that are in development). The next experiments I will test using preemptible instances...

Running a new experiment with the main fuzzers and the new benchmark. The experiment is using preemptible VMs https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/2020-05-04-preempt-new-bench/index.html EDIT: I'll discuss the results from that experiment [here](https://github.com/google/fuzzbench/issues/304) to reduce...

A 15 trial full experiment: https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/2020-05-24/index.html

20 trial experiment comparing aflplusplus_optimal, aflplusplus_shmem, and ankou (with a buggy integration): https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/2020-05-28/index.html

https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/2020-06-12/index.html is an experiment with libfuzzer_nocmp, aflcc, manul and afl++ (and its variants) combined with 2020-05-24.

What did you notice that's different in 2020-07-17? I stopped that experiment to run 2020-07-13 (the AFL++ experiment I was supposed to run for you a few days ago, but...

I moved 2020-07-17 [here](http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/fuzzbench-reports/2020-07-17/index.html) since I don't consider it an official experiment. >was there already an assessment which of the two coverage methods is better or what the advantages/disadvantages are?...

> Also 2020-07-17 is not updated anymore since moved I stopped that experiment to run yours.