-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30895/#review73217
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/SchedulingBenchmarks.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30895/#comment119464>

    Forgive me if i've asked this before, but what's the reasoning behind using 
extension for what seems like static configuration?  Seems like a settings 
builder class would be more appropriate.



src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/SchedulingBenchmarks.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30895/#comment119465>

    You might want to use a limit rather than value constraint for this test, 
or add another benchmark for both.  Limit constraints are more work for the 
scheduler to compute, and would yield more real-world results.


- Bill Farner


On Feb. 11, 2015, 9:39 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30895/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 11, 2015, 9:39 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Kevin Sweeney and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Offer filtering for static vetoes. Part 4 of 4: Modifying benchmarks to 
> support preemption toggling.
> 
> Original RB: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28617/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/SchedulingBenchmarks.java 
> 8c11ef8bd6609f3e4d97ca154d922898f8362446 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/Tasks.java 
> 1a35f9ee9e8e76def0f9bf5454cf8cbdf6a89c25 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30895/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> ./gradlew -Pq build
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko
> 
>

Reply via email to