Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
In-Reply-To: <20040803044451.GA10310@sweetums.ce1.client2.attbi.com>
References: <20040803044451.GA10310@sweetums.ce1.client2.attbi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <055A1C60-E51D-11D8-979A-000D93361CAA@coredevelopers.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david@coredevelopers.net>
Subject: Re: Unit/Stress Tests
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 00:16:21 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

I think that parameterizing the stress tests and running them in the 
normal build at very low volume is a good idea.  Then they can be run 
also at high volume on a more dedicated machine.  I could be wrong but 
I think that starting and stopping kernels and xml manipulation takes 
more test time than our current stress tests.

david jencks

On Aug 2, 2004, at 9:44 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> In my mind stress tests and unit tests are different things.  Stress
> tests should not be run with the unit tests as part of a regular
> build.  They would be in the same src/test dir, but everything
> matching *StressTest.java would be excluded.  We should be running
> these with some separate maven goal like 'maven test:stress' or
> something similar (a similar thing could perhaps be done with the
> integration tests in openejb, 'maven test:integration').
>
> My motivation is two fold.
>
> One, the stress tests slow the build down so much that it's clear
> people are trying to get by without having to build
> everything--frequently breaking builds is a tell-tale sign.
>
> Two, if we are going to do stress tests, which is good, we should
> really go all out and hammer the server.  I'm talking about tests that
> nail the server for like a half an hour filling up pools, trashing
> memory, stretching the thread count, and generally pushing things to
> their limit.
>
> We already do nightly build/test runs on several machines, it would be
> fairly trivial to setup a machine to run the stress tests as well.
> Though it would be better to use dedicated hardware for these as the
> resource consumption would go beyond responsible usage of boxes
> performing other critical tasks.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>