ScalaTest actually has support for parallelization built-in. We can use that.
The main challenge is to make sure all the test suites can work in parallel when running along side each other. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > How about using parallel execution feature of maven-surefire-plugin > (assuming all the tests were made parallel friendly) ? > > > http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-surefire-plugin/examples/fork-options-and-parallel-execution.html > > Cheers > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > A common approach is to separate unit tests from integration tests. > > Maven has support for this distinction. I'm not sure it helps a lot > > though, since it only helps you to not run integration tests all the > > time. But lots of Spark tests are integration-test-like and are > > important to run to know a change works. > > > > I haven't heard of a plugin to run different test suites remotely on > > many machines, but I would not be surprised if it exists. > > > > The Jenkins servers aren't CPU-bound as far as I can tell. It's that > > the tests spend a lot of time waiting for bits to start up or > > complete. That implies the existing tests could be sped up by just > > running in parallel locally. I recall someone recently proposed this? > > > > And I think the problem with that is simply that some of the tests > > collide with each other, by opening up the same port at the same time > > for example. I know that kind of problem is being attacked even right > > now. But if all the tests were made parallel friendly, I imagine > > parallelism could be enabled and speed up builds greatly without any > > remote machines. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Nicholas Chammas > > <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Howdy, > > > > > > Do we think it's both feasible and worthwhile to invest in getting our > > unit > > > tests to finish in under 5 minutes (or something similarly brief) when > > run > > > by Jenkins? > > > > > > Unit tests currently seem to take anywhere from 30 min to 2 hours. As > > > people add more tests, I imagine this time will only grow. I think it > > would > > > be better for both contributors and reviewers if they didn't have to > wait > > > so long for test results; PR reviews would be shorter, if nothing else. > > > > > > I don't know how how this is normally done, but maybe it wouldn't be > too > > > much work to get a test cycle to feel lighter. > > > > > > Most unit tests are independent and can be run concurrently, right? > Would > > > it make sense to build a given patch on many servers at once and send > > > disjoint sets of unit tests to each? > > > > > > I'd be interested in working on something like that if possible (and > > > sensible). > > > > > > Nick > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > > > > >
