On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 09:34:24 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > @AlanBateman Could you please review the above comments. > > Thanks for changing the message, the update to ZipFile looks good to me > although I'm still surprised that the native tools support a CEN larger than > 2Gb. > > I'm slow to add myself as a Reviewer because I'm concerned about the test. I > ran it on a couple of systems and it take several minutes to create the ZIP > file. This test may potentially run concurrently with other I/O bound tests > and I'm concerned about intermittent timeouts. @LanceAndersen - do you have > any opinions on this? I haven't had a chance to look at this yet but will kick off some runs to see what the runtime via mach5. We might have issues with some of the test machines. > > @AlanBateman Could you please review the above comments. > > Thanks for changing the message, the update to ZipFile looks good to me > although I'm still surprised that the native tools support a CEN larger than > 2Gb. > > I'm slow to add myself as a Reviewer because I'm concerned about the test. I > ran it on a couple of systems and it take several minutes to create the ZIP > file. This test may potentially run concurrently with other I/O bound tests > and I'm concerned about intermittent timeouts. @LanceAndersen - do you have > any opinions on this? I have not had a chance to look at this yet in detail but in the meantime I will kick off a mach5 run to see what the runtime is on our test machines today A couple quick passing comments. The test should delete the file after the run/error given the potential size. Was there a reason you did not the test is not TestNG based? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6927
