> On July 19, 2016, 9:45 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > Commented on the resources benchmarks. Also let's pull it out then we can > > hopefully commit the arithmetic operations for shared resources patch first. > > > > On the separate review could you post the numbers from cout instead of the > > total test time? > > > > Overall I think this benchmark is sufficient for a first cut while we are > > thinking about more sophisticated tests that evaluate the performance of > > shared persistent volumes fairly. > > > > In the new review perhaps add klaus1982 as the review as they are writing > > benchmarks for regular DiskInfo/Persistent Volumes (I pinged @klaus1982 on > > #allocator channel on slack) > > > > If they haven't done so, we can add a benchmark for regular persistent > > volumes: add up (e.g.,) 5000 distinct persistent volumes together and see > > the performance. But then, what we can achieve is to compare the > > performance of regular persistent volumes with and without the new patch: > > to verify that the new patch doesn't lead to degradation of regular > > persistent volume arithmetic.
Moves resources benchmark to https://reviews.apache.org/r/50205/. > On July 19, 2016, 9:45 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp, lines 2592-2603 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49571/diff/6/?file=1445905#file1445905line2592> > > > > Can we use `createPersistentVolume()` to create the `disk` directly? Creating the shared persistent volume via `createDiskResource()`. - Anindya ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49571/#review142771 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 19, 2016, 10:53 p.m., Anindya Sinha wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/49571/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 19, 2016, 10:53 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-5771 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5771 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Allocations test has the following configurations: > (1) REGULAR: Offers from every slave have regular resources. > (2) SHARED: Offers from every slave include a shared resource. > (3) REGULAR: Offers from every alternate slave contain only regular > resources; and offers from every other alternate slave contains > a shared resource. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 3ddce7ab19613831527f010524b8454fecfb9927 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49571/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > All tests passed. > > Allocations benchmark test results > ================================== > Support of shared resources has a small impact on runtime performance in > allocations. Also, there is no visible impact in performance when shared > resources are added in the tests. > > With the patch (and no shared resources) > ---------------------------------------- > round 0 allocate took 3.19704secs to make 200 offers > round 50 allocate took 3.240605secs to make 200 offers > round 100 allocate took 3.227024secs to make 200 offers > round 150 allocate took 3.225281secs to make 200 offers > round 199 allocate took 3.26036secs to make 200 offers > > With the patch (and shared resources on all agents) > --------------------------------------------------- > round 0 allocate took 3.279115secs to make 200 offers > round 50 allocate took 3.273396secs to make 200 offers > round 100 allocate took 3.278509secs to make 200 offers > round 150 allocate took 3.275959secs to make 200 offers > round 199 allocate took 3.278151secs to make 200 offers > > With the patch (and shared resources on alternate agents) > --------------------------------------------------------- > round 0 allocate took 3.251739secs to make 200 offers > round 50 allocate took 3.263777secs to make 200 offers > round 100 allocate took 3.263079secs to make 200 offers > round 150 allocate took 3.263114secs to make 200 offers > round 199 allocate took 3.236228secs to make 200 offers > > Based on HEAD, with all regular resources (no shared resources in HEAD > supported) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > round 0 allocate took 2.925681secs to make 200 offers > round 50 allocate took 2.922036secs to make 200 offers > round 100 allocate took 2.909337secs to make 200 offers > round 150 allocate took 2.914093secs to make 200 offers > round 199 allocate took 2.923762secs to make 200 offers > > > Thanks, > > Anindya Sinha > >
