> On 八月 24, 2016, 9:12 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, line 4030 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49617/diff/7/?file=1476268#file1476268line4030> > > > > How about adding `ports` resources to the allocation here. > > > > ``` > > // Each agent has a portion of it's resources allocated to a single > > // framework. We round-robin through the frameworks when allocating. > > Resources allocation = > > Resources::parse("cpus:16;mem:1024;disk:1024").get(); > > > > Try<::mesos::Value::Ranges> ranges = fragment(createRange(31000, > > 32000), 16); > > ASSERT_SOME(ranges); > > ASSERT_EQ(16, ranges->range_size()); > > > > allocation += createPorts(ranges.get()); > > ``` > > Jacob Janco wrote: > I took this out to simplify the test. > > Guangya Liu wrote: > I think that we should simulate a full allocate scernario in the > benchmark test to include `ports` as well just like other benchmark test, as > we actually have some special logic to handle non-scalar resources in sorter > when allocate resources, comments? > > Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > What's the special logic that you were referring to? I am not aganist > adding to ports here but once this test is committed let's do some refactor > to pull common elements into helpers or member variables so new benchmark > tests don't need to copy a lot of code.
+1 to add some common helpers, I was proposing adding `ports` here is mainly because now all benchmark test include `ports` resources and also the `sorter` have some logic for non-scalar resources, such as `createStrippedScalarQuantity` etc which will filter out the non-scalar resources, so adding `ports` here would simulate a real use cases here. - Guangya ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49617/#review146625 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 八月 17, 2016, 2:26 a.m., Jacob Janco wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/49617/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 八月 17, 2016, 2:26 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-5780 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5780 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > - This benchmark measures latency to stability of > the allocator following disconnection and > reconnection of all frameworks. > - In this scenario, frameworks are offered resources > and suppressed in batches. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > cbed333f497016fe2811f755028796012b41db77 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49617/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > MESOS_BENCHMARK=1 GTEST_FILTER="*BENCHMARK_Test.FrameworkFailover*" make check > > Sample Output: > [ RUN ] > SlaveAndFrameworkCount/HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.FrameworkFailover/23 > Using 10000 agents and 6000 frameworks > Added 6000 frameworks in 113410us > Added 10000 agents in 6.83980663333333mins > allocator settled after 3.28683733333333mins > [ OK ] > SlaveAndFrameworkCount/HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.FrameworkFailover/23 > (609255 ms)[ RUN ] > SlaveAndFrameworkCount/HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.FrameworkFailover/24 > Using 20000 agents and 1 frameworks > Added 1 frameworks in 190us > Added 20000 agents in 4.752954secs > allocator settled after 7us > [ OK ] > SlaveAndFrameworkCount/HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.FrameworkFailover/24 > (6332 ms) > > > Thanks, > > Jacob Janco > >
