accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] MiniAccumuloCluster goals and approach
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:26:08 GMT
On 3/26/14, 11:13 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>> On 3/26/14, 10:57 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>> Can you give an example of what you are thinking of? I don't understand
>>> you
>>> viewpoint either
>> Sure. One limitation of MAC, in general as a testing harness, is that it
>> doesn't adequately exercise multi-node implementations. You can run
>> multiple tservers, but they are all on the same host which limits the
>> validity of a "robust" test. This is my immediate goal.
>> Multi-node deployments are capable using something like Mesos or Yarn.
>> Given that there is already functioning support to deploy Accumulo on Yarn,
>> this was my goal.
>> My goal is to be able to have the ability to run all of our AbstractMacIT
>> implementations against "real" hardware without changing a single line of
>> test code (ok - maybe a line or two to do injection of the MAC
>> implementation). The point is, I believe there could be a huge testing gain
>> from being able to write tests which leverage yarn, have the same
>> programmatic configuration API from MAC, and provide near "real" Accumulo
>> semantics.
> Ok so you want to MAC to be an interface so that you can provide a
> completely different implementation?

Correct. Some things would serve well in a common abstract base (e.g. 
numTservers, siteXml configuration), but all the nonsense about creating 
directory structures and managing Processes is implementation specific.

Perhaps I could create a new interface that the current implementation 
implements which still provides the same semantics from 1.4 and 1.5. Let 
me see if I can mock up what I'm thinking -- that will probably be 
easier than me trying to write it out.

View raw message