accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <>
Subject Re: Separation of timing/performance tests from normal Maven build
Date Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:11:48 GMT

That would be really cool.   I would probably write more performance test
ITs if we had something like this.  In the past I think I have avoided
writing performance ITs because of the issues mentioned.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Josh Elser <> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message