harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikhail Loenko <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-31) Move peformance timing of unit tests into a decorator class.
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:22:45 GMT
To summarize, we have 3 options:

1. Keep PerformanceTest as a super class. Set printAllowed to false by default.
2. Remove PerformnceTest. Introduce a simple Logger that does not print by
default.
3. Move performance functionality to Decorator.

#1 is the most unliked. #3 as I wrote before does not work.

So I can submit a script that goes through the tests replacing
"extends PerformanceTest" with "extends TestCase"
"import PerformanceTest" with "import Logger"
and putting "Logger." before
logln() and other log functions

Thanks,
Mikhail


On 1/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > On 1/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >>> The problem is unstable execution time of java programs:
> >>>
> >>> If you consequently run the same java program on the same computer
> >>> in the same conditions, execution time may vary by 20% or even more
> >> Why?  Given that computers are pretty determinstic, I'd argue that you
> >> don't have the same conditions from run to run.
> >
> > Did you make experiments or it's your theoretical conclusion :) ?
>
> Have done experiments.  I never claim that it's the same conditions
> every run.  That's the issue, I think.
>
> geir
>
> > Try to create an application that runs 20 seconds and run it several times.
> >
> > Frankly, I do not exactly know why. But I know a lot of reasons that could
> > affect this dispersion. For example, there is a number of serving
> > threads and GC that impact on execution time.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> >
> >> geir
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message