accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Separation of timing/performance tests from normal Maven build
Date Thu, 02 Jul 2015 02:31:35 GMT
Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3929

Christopher wrote:
> Late, but +1
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mike Drob<mdrob@mdrob.com>  wrote:
>> +1 annotate categories
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Was talking with Eric off-list about a recent test he added.
>>>
>>> Over the past two major release lines (1.6 and 1.7), there's been a
>>> significant level of effort put forth by multiple devs to get the
>>> integration tests running on "terrible" hardware. This has been a great
>>> endeavor because our tests have never been more stable and it's even helped
>>> us catch bugs that we would have otherwise assumed as transiently failing
>>> (ACCUMULO-3859 is a great example).
>>>
>>> Because we are writing a database, we're always concerned about
>>> performance regressions, both high-level and low-level. I'd like to propose
>>> that we recognize and accept this head-on and try to move these
>>> specifically "high-load" and "performance related" tests to their own
>>> execution phase that we can run specifically on nodes that meet the
>>> necessary preconditions.
>>>
>>> Some examples of tests:
>>>
>>> DeleteTableDuringSplitIT
>>> DurabilityIT
>>> ManySplitIT
>>> RollWALPerformanceIT
>>>
>>> I know we can do some classification of tests via surefire/failsafe which
>>> should roughly meet our goals (typically via an annotation on the class).
>>> Thus, we could add a specific flag to a Maven build that would include this
>>> subset of tests.
>>>
>>> What do people think?  Do others also think that this is worth pursuing?
>>>
>>> - Josh
>>>

Mime
View raw message