# from Nicholas Clark # on Monday 05 February 2007 03:24 am: >which was sufficient to give a lot of flexibility in how tests were > run (and discover that the core is very unoriginal in its naming of > temporary files)
# from Adam Kennedy
# on Monday 05 February 2007 03:41 am:
>Each test is still independent (they randomize just fine) but if you
> ran two at the same time they could wallop each other's data.
True, and I too have already discovered this in my own tests. I imagine
sprinkling some $$'s in the temp filename declaration would do the
trick.
If anybody wants to play with it, attached is a stupid snippet that just
dumps output to files in /tmp/t/. Of course, sorting tests by subdir
might be better than randomly, etc.
The tests run in 1/2 to 1/3 the time on my dual CPU system, so it's not
just adding CPU's that changes things (I think a lot of the delay is in
starting each test.)
--Eric
--
If the above message is encrypted and you have lost your pgp key, please
send a self-addressed, stamped lead box to the address below.
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
forked_tests.pl
Description: Perl program
