I agree, I should have documented this. I'm currently working on getting back to the official version of Surefire (HBASE-4955), and I will simplify this as well. For example, renaming "surefire.secondPartThreadCount" to "threadCount" (i.e. the standard name in Surefire). I will update the documentation accordingly.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Lars George <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on adding this. > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:41, Jesse Yates <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Do we want to add this to the reference guide? I know its something I'd > > forget... > > ------------------- > > Jesse Yates > > @jesse_yates > > jyates.github.com > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM, N Keywal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Matt, > >> > >> The fastest way to run the tests is to use a ramdrive and to use as many > >> process as possible. > >> > >> mvn -Dtest.build.data.basedirectory=/ramdrive test -P runAllTests > >> -Dsurefire.secondPartThreadCount=12 > >> > >> => Dtest.build.data.basedirectory => use the given directory to write > the > >> test data > >> sudo mkdir /ramdrive > >> sudo mount -t tmpfs -o size=2000M tmpfs /ramdrive > >> It must be cleaned before running another test. > >> > >> => -P runAllTests => run all tests. Without this parameter only small > and > >> medium tests are executed > >> > >> => -Dsurefire.secondPartThreadCount=12 => execute 12 tests in parallel. > Can > >> be increased. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> N. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Matt Corgan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi devs - are there any commands to pass to "mvn test" to get it to run > >> the > >>> tests more aggressively. Trying to run it on i7 / 32G / SSD, and only > >>> seeing 10 or 20% cpu usage and negligible iowait. I tried "mvn -T 2C > >> test" > >>> which is supposed to run 2 threads per core, but not sure it's making a > >>> difference. > >>> > >>> Maybe there are some other options i don't know about. I know a ton of > >>> work has gone into speeding up tests, so please don't read as a > >> criticism! > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Matt > >>> > >> >
