----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
