-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#review121581
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!





src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 2610 - 2620)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#comment183318>

    let's use a loop, and add a comment explaining that we're trying to force 
the N^2 labels comparison algorithm by having so many labels.



src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 2633 - 2634)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#comment183319>

    Can we add a TODO to factor this test out by parameterizing the 
DeclineFilter test of which it is a copy?


- Joris Van Remoortere


On March 2, 2016, 2:21 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 2, 2016, 2:21 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4691
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4691
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This reveals that when the cluster contains many reservations with
> distinct labels, allocator performance slows down dramatically. A
> short-term fix for this problem will be introduced shortly.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp 
> 5f771f02db9bd098f3cd36730cd84bf2f5e87a33 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> FYI, results on my laptop:
> 
> _Original benchmark (unlabeled resources)_
> [ RUN      ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.DeclineOffers
> Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks
> round 0 allocate took 2.028175secs to make 200 offers
> round 1 allocate took 2.006791secs to make 200 offers
> round 2 allocate took 2.033723secs to make 200 offers
> round 3 allocate took 2.017508secs to make 200 offers
> round 4 allocate took 2.037235secs to make 200 offers
> round 5 allocate took 2.054095secs to make 200 offers
> round 6 allocate took 2.048884secs to make 200 offers
> round 7 allocate took 2.044252secs to make 200 offers
> round 8 allocate took 2.060256secs to make 200 offers
> round 9 allocate took 2.07121secs to make 200 offers
> round 10 allocate took 2.066261secs to make 200 offers
> round 11 allocate took 2.034805secs to make 200 offers
> round 12 allocate took 2.053705secs to make 200 offers
> round 13 allocate took 2.042106secs to make 200 offers
> round 14 allocate took 2.082704secs to make 200 offers
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to