db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Waagan <Kristian.Waa...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: squeezing some multi-processing out of the nightly test runs?
Date Mon, 19 May 2008 09:37:59 GMT
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
> Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM> writes:
>> Mike Matrigali wrote:
>>> I would like to get the nightly tests to run faster on machines that
>>> have more than one cpu - or even hyperthreaded on a single cpu.
>>> Since most of the tests are single threaded I think this means
>>> somehow running more than one test at a time.  For me
>>> it might even help if I was just able to run tests on 2 different
>>> codelines on the same machine at the same time.
>>> I think going forward this will be more and
>>> more common for developers.  You can find reasonably priced laptops
>>> nowadays that come dual core already.
>>> I know what outstanding issue is that the network tests default to the
>>> same port.  I believe at least for the junit tests one can set a
>>> different port number.  Does anyone know if this fixes all the
>>> issues
>>> for the junit tests - I think I have seen some tests try different ports
>>> rather than the default one.
>> Hi Mike,
>> I don't know how much work is needed to make the junit tests
>> independent of the port number. I can't find a JIRA which lists all of
>> the problem cases. However, the following JIRAs may be helpful:
>> DERBY-2440 and DERBY-2404.
> It is possible to change the port for all tests in a JUnit suite if we
> run the suite like this:
>   java -Dport=XXX -DjmxPort=YYY ...

Hi Knut Anders,

Have you tested this?
The last time I looked at it, the relevant code was only invoked for 
test runs in the DERBY_HARNESS_CONFIG configuration, which I believe is 
some kind of backward compatibility mode with respect to the old harness.
It seems this mode can be triggered by various things, for instance if 
derby.system.home is specified, so people might see different behavior 
depending on how they start the tests.

I also see that that some methods are using the constant DEFAULT_PORT 
directly, which suggests we are not quite there yet...

I find this code, or at least the naming and the comments, a tad 
confusing. I would like to remove the notion of the old harness, and can 
do another pass and see if we can remove it now.


[ snip - parallelization ideas ]

View raw message