That is a good point, what stats would you recommend. Ideally it would be good to get something we can pull from jmx.
-jay On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Jeffrey Damick <jeffreydam...@gmail.com>wrote: > One thought, I don't see any points related to jvm heap / gc profiling, it > may not be a major concern at this point but it probably makes sense to > have > a baseline.. > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Neha and I have been doing so work on perf testing. My past experience > with > > these perf and integration testing frameworks is that > > > > 1. This kind of testing is extremely important. At least as important > as > > unit testing. A lot of the bugs that are caught in production could be > > caught be good integration tests but likely will never be caught be > unit > > tests. > > 2. It is hard to get all your pieces scripted up so that you can fully > > automate the perf analysis you want to do and run this every day. > > 3. It requires dedicated hardware that doesn't change from day to day. > > 4. One of the biggest problems is that perf code is always kind of an > > afterthought. As a result one never gets to a framework that is good > > enough > > to use. Instead you keep re-writing the same test harnesses over and > over > > but with little tweaks for each new test you need to run, then throwing > > that > > code away because it is so specific it can't be reused. > > > > To hopefully help I started a wiki where we could work out some ideas for > > this. The idea is basically just to dump out all the stats we have now to > > CSV and do some analysis in R. Then script this up in a way that we can > > craft "test scenarios" and run a bunch of these different configurations. > > > > Wiki here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Performance+testing > > > > Would love to hear people's thoughts. > > > > -Jay > > >
