Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
Rick Hillegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.



--
Kristian

[ snip - parallelization ideas ]

Reply via email to