Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Message-ID: <57AF7CF1.4060401@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 16:02:57 -0400
From: Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Dealing with FastBulkImportIT
References: <57AF6E99.2000300@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <57AF6E99.2000300@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:03:03 -0000

I had assumed this test would pass locally (early-2013 MBP, 2.7 GHz 
Intel Core i7, 16G ram), but nope! 38s and 45+ seconds on two runs.

Josh Elser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some complaints about FastBulkImportIT (a test added with
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3327) but no good ideas
> for how to better test it. As it presently stands, it is a very
> subjective test WRT the kind of hardware used to run it.
>
> The test launches a 3-tserver MAC instance, creates about 585 splits on
> a table, creates 100 files with ~1200 key-value pairs, and then waits
> for the table to be balanced.
>
> At this point, it imports these files into that table and fails if that
> takes longer than 30s.
>
> On my VPS (3core, 6G ram, "SSD"), the bulk import takes ~45 seconds.
> This test will never pass on this node which bothers me because I am of
> the opinion that anyone (with reasonable hardware) should be able to run
> our tests (and to make sure it's clear: I believe this is reasonable
> hardware).
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on how we could stabilize this test for
> developers?
>
> - Josh