aurora-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Erb <s...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 54011: Add benchmarks for `StateManagerImpl`.
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:33:08 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#review156761
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!





src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (lines 62 - 67)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227040>

    Please specify the time for `@Warmup` and `@Iterations`. My google skill have just failed
me to quickly find out what's the current default.
    
    Example (used in in our other benchmarks):
    ```
        @BenchmarkMode(Mode.Throughput)
        @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.SECONDS)
        @Warmup(iterations = 1, time = 10, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
        @Measurement(iterations = 5, time = 5, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
        @Fork(1)
        @State(Scope.Thread)
    ```



src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (line 97)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227037>

    `void` benchmarks are an anti-pattern and strongly discouraged. The JVM might decide to
perform unexpected optimizations.



src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (lines 118 - 123)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227036>

    Same as above. Please specify the time for `@Warmup` and `@Iterations`.



src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java (line 154)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/#comment227038>

    Same as above, `void` benchmarks are an anti-pattern.


- Stephan Erb


On Nov. 23, 2016, 3:47 a.m., Zameer Manji wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 23, 2016, 3:47 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Stephan Erb.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-1823
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1823
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> `StateManagerImpl` is in the middle of every task state transition in the
> scheduler. Performance improvements here could yield scheduling throughput
> improvements across the board. This adds benchmarks for the two bulk APIs,
> inserting pending tasks and deleting tasks. Sample output:
> 
> ````
> Benchmark                                               (numPendingTasks)  (numTasksToDelete)
  Mode  Cnt  Score   Error  Units
> StateManagerBenchmarks.DeleteTasksBenchmark.run                       N/A           
    1000  thrpt   10  2.510 ± 0.557  ops/s
> StateManagerBenchmarks.DeleteTasksBenchmark.run                       N/A           
   10000  thrpt   10  0.272 ± 0.030  ops/s
> StateManagerBenchmarks.DeleteTasksBenchmark.run                       N/A           
   50000  thrpt   10  0.053 ± 0.011  ops/s
> StateManagerBenchmarks.InsertPendingTasksBenchmark.run               1000           
     N/A  thrpt   10  2.446 ± 0.698  ops/s
> StateManagerBenchmarks.InsertPendingTasksBenchmark.run              10000           
     N/A  thrpt   10  0.246 ± 0.018  ops/s
> StateManagerBenchmarks.InsertPendingTasksBenchmark.run              50000           
     N/A  thrpt   10  0.041 ± 0.006  ops/s
> ````
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StateManagerBenchmarks.java PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54011/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Zameer Manji
> 
>


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