I wrote the original benchmarks so I'll take care of migrating us to Google Caliper (unless someone beats me to the punch). Caliper seems to be similar enough that we don't have to scrap overall benchmark design.
— Jacob Wilder On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Ellison Anne Williams < [email protected]> wrote: > Ok - let's take a close look at Google Caliper (unless anyone has a better > option) and see if we can go ahead and port > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I completely agree that we should port that code to Google Caliper. > > > > The benchmarking code wasn't a high priority for Flink project and hence > > they chose to just remove the code. > > > > The alternatives to JMH are - Google Caliper and Metrics ( > > http://metrics.dropwizard.io/3.1.0/) and anything else folks are aware > of > > ?? > > > > My personal preference would be Google Caliper, we had used that in the > > past to micro-benchmark Mahout's legacy Math Linear Algebra backend. > > > > Suneel > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ellison Anne Williams < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Suneel -- Thanks for creating the JIRA issue and pointing out the > > licensing > > > problems. I see that JMH is under the GNU GPL2 ( > > > http://openjdk.java.net/legal/) which is not compatible with the > Apache > > > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). > > > > > > It appears that Flink just removed the benchmarking code instead of > > > re-porting it to another option. > > > > > > I would like us to port it to another license-compatible benchmarking > > > framework such as Google Caliper (or something similar) instead of > > removing > > > the code as the benchmarking is important for encryption optimization. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Ellison Anne > > > > > >
