aurora-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ben Mahler" <benjamin.mah...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 33608: Added a status update throughput benchmark.
Date Fri, 01 May 2015 19:13:14 GMT


> On April 30, 2015, 5:29 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> > src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StatusUpdateBenchmark.java, line 103
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/33608/diff/4/?file=945995#file945995line103>
> >
> >     I should have asked the first time around - what's the thought process behind
including this?  Given that this is a benchmark, it seems only to place a ceiling on throughput.

My goal here was not to micro-benchmark the status update processing path, but to show how
to achieve high throughput against an expensive resource. So, although it's obviously the
case today that the latency bounds throughput, this benchmark serves to demonstrate that _even
in the face of degraded storage latency_ we can have high throughput. With my upcoming changes,
that is. :)


- Ben


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33608/#review82163
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 30, 2015, 12:35 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33608/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 30, 2015, 12:35 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Maxim Khutornenko.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-1283
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1283
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In order to justify doing asynchronous batch acknowledgements and to better understand
status update throughput, this introduces a benchmark.
> 
> Note that this assumes that status update processing is not synchronous, so that the
benchmark doesn't need to be updated for AURORA-1228.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StatusUpdateBenchmark.java PRE-CREATION 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/fakes/FakeOfferManager.java PRE-CREATION 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/fakes/FakeSchedulerDriver.java PRE-CREATION

>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/UserTaskLauncher.java c54619f7cd617b48069363173dcf63b6254b4095

>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/SchedulerDriverModule.java d7d659bb13f085ff06291ef0033572f8bdf29874

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33608/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ran the benchmarks against the existing code and some pending code I have for AURORA-1228
to demonstrate the improvement.
> 
> The end to end tests are broken, appears to be unrelated to my change from what I can
tell.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>


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