[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21097?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16591720#comment-16591720
]
Ted Yu commented on HBASE-21097:
--------------------------------
Looks like using epsilon to judge how close the flush pressure would be to 0 is
very hard to accommodate different memory settings.
I think what the test needs to verify is that flush pressure comes down
significantly after flushing completes.
Please take a look at patch v2 where I rewrite the assertion.
> Flush pressure assertion may fail in testFlushThroughputTuning
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-21097
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21097
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Test
> Reporter: Ted Yu
> Assignee: Ted Yu
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: 21097.v1.txt, 21097.v2.txt, HBASE-21097.patch
>
>
> From
> https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/14137/artifact/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-server.txt
> :
> {code}
> [ERROR]
> testFlushThroughputTuning(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.throttle.TestFlushWithThroughputController)
> Time elapsed: 17.446 s <<< FAILURE!
> java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<0.0> but was:<1.2906294173808417E-6>
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.throttle.TestFlushWithThroughputController.testFlushThroughputTuning(TestFlushWithThroughputController.java:185)
> {code}
> Here is the related assertion:
> {code}
> assertEquals(0.0, regionServer.getFlushPressure(), EPSILON);
> {code}
> where EPSILON = 1E-6
> In the above case, due to margin of 2.9E-7, the assertion didn't pass.
> It seems the epsilon can be adjusted to accommodate different workload /
> hardware combination.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
