Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Discussed privately with Max. Discussion results provided at the slack channel [1]. [1] https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/C016F4PS8KV/p1595336751234500 On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:59 PM Max Shonichev wrote: > Anton, Nikolay, > > I want to share some more findings about ducktests I've stubmled upon > during porting them to Tiden. > > > First problem was that GridGain Tiden-based tests by default use real > production-like configuration for Ignite nodes, notably: > > - persitence enabled > - ~120 caches in ~40 groups > - data set size around 1M keys per each cache > - primitive and PoJo cache values > - extensive use of query entities (indices) > > When I've tried to run 4 nodes with such configuration in docker, my > notebook nearly burns. Nevertheless, grid was starting and working OK, > but for one little 'but': each successive version under test was > starting slower and slower. > > The 2.7.6 was the fastest, 2.8.0 and 2.8.1 a little bit slower, and your > fork (2.9.0-SNAPSHOT) failed to start 4 persistence-enabled nodes within > default 120 seconds timeout. In order to mimick behavior of your tests I > had to turn off persistence and use only 1 cache too. > > It's a pity that you completely ignore persistence and indices in your > ducktests, otherwise you would quickly stuck into same limitation. > > I hope in the nearest time I would adopt Tiden docker PoC to our > TeamCity and we'll try to git-bisect in order to find where this > slowdown comes from. After that I'll file a bug to IGNITE Jira. > > > > Another problem with your rebalance benchmark is it's low accuracy due > to granularity of measurements. > > You don't actually measure rebalance time, you measure time that takes > you to find a specific string in logs, that's confusing. > > The scenario of your test is as follows: > > 1. start 3 server nodes > 2. start 1 data loading client, preload a data, stop client > 3. start 1 more server node > 4. wait till server joins topology > 5. wait till this server node completes exchange and write > 'rebalanced=true, wasRebalanced=false' message to log > 6. report time was taken by step 5 as 'Rebalance time' > > Confusing thing here is that 'wait till' implementation - you actually > continuously re-scan logs sleeping each second and wait till message > appear. So, that means that rebalance time is at least of second > granularity or even higher, though it is reported with nanosecond > precision. > > But for such lightweight configuration (single in-memory cache) and such > small set of data (1M keys only), rebalancing is very fast, and usually > performs under 1 second or just slightly slower. > > Before waiting for rebalance message you first wait for topology message > and that wait also takes time to execute. > > So, at the time Python part of the test performs first scan of the logs, > rebalancing is in most cases already done and time you report as > '0.0760810375213623' is actually the time to execute logs scanning code. > > However, if rebalancing perform just a little bit slower after topology > update, then first scan of logs is failed, you sleep for whole one > second and rescan logs and there you got your message and report it as > '1.02205491065979'. > > Under different conditions, dockerized application may run a little > slower or a little faster, that depends on overall system load, free > memory, etc. I've tried to increase load on my laptop by running browser > or maven build, and time to scan logs may fluctuate from 0.02 to 0.09 or > even 1.02 seconds. Note, that in CI environment, high system load from > tenants is a quite ordinary situation. > > Suppose we adopted rebalance improvements and all versions after 2.9.0 > would perform within 1 second just as 2.9.0 itself. Then your benchmark > would either report false negative (e.g. 0.02 for master and 0.03 for > PR), while actually on next re-run it would pass (e.g. 0.07 for master > and 0.03 for PR). That's not quite the 'stable and non-flacky' test > Ignite community wants. > > What suggestions do you have to improve benchmark measurement accuracy? > > > A third question is about PME free switch benchmark. Under some > conditions, LongTxStreamerApplication actually hangs up PME. It need to > be investigated further, but either this was due to persistence enabled > or due to missing -DIGNITE_ALLOW_ATOMIC_OPS_IN_TX=false > > Can you share some details about IGNITE_ALLOW_ATOMIC_OPS_IN_TX option? > Also, have you had performed a test of PME free switch with > persistence-enabled caches? > > > On 09.07.2020 10:11, Max Shonichev wrote: > > Anton, > > > > well, strange thing, but clean up and rerun helped. > > > > > > Ubuntu 18.04 > > > > > > > > > > SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS) > > ducktape version: 0.7.7 > > session_id: 2020-07-06--003 > > run time: 4 minutes 44.835 seconds > > tests run:5 > > passed:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Anton, Nikolay,
I want to share some more findings about ducktests I've stubmled upon
during porting them to Tiden.
First problem was that GridGain Tiden-based tests by default use real
production-like configuration for Ignite nodes, notably:
- persitence enabled
- ~120 caches in ~40 groups
- data set size around 1M keys per each cache
- primitive and PoJo cache values
- extensive use of query entities (indices)
When I've tried to run 4 nodes with such configuration in docker, my
notebook nearly burns. Nevertheless, grid was starting and working OK,
but for one little 'but': each successive version under test was
starting slower and slower.
The 2.7.6 was the fastest, 2.8.0 and 2.8.1 a little bit slower, and your
fork (2.9.0-SNAPSHOT) failed to start 4 persistence-enabled nodes within
default 120 seconds timeout. In order to mimick behavior of your tests I
had to turn off persistence and use only 1 cache too.
It's a pity that you completely ignore persistence and indices in your
ducktests, otherwise you would quickly stuck into same limitation.
I hope in the nearest time I would adopt Tiden docker PoC to our
TeamCity and we'll try to git-bisect in order to find where this
slowdown comes from. After that I'll file a bug to IGNITE Jira.
Another problem with your rebalance benchmark is it's low accuracy due
to granularity of measurements.
You don't actually measure rebalance time, you measure time that takes
you to find a specific string in logs, that's confusing.
The scenario of your test is as follows:
1. start 3 server nodes
2. start 1 data loading client, preload a data, stop client
3. start 1 more server node
4. wait till server joins topology
5. wait till this server node completes exchange and write
'rebalanced=true, wasRebalanced=false' message to log
6. report time was taken by step 5 as 'Rebalance time'
Confusing thing here is that 'wait till' implementation - you actually
continuously re-scan logs sleeping each second and wait till message
appear. So, that means that rebalance time is at least of second
granularity or even higher, though it is reported with nanosecond
precision.
But for such lightweight configuration (single in-memory cache) and such
small set of data (1M keys only), rebalancing is very fast, and usually
performs under 1 second or just slightly slower.
Before waiting for rebalance message you first wait for topology message
and that wait also takes time to execute.
So, at the time Python part of the test performs first scan of the logs,
rebalancing is in most cases already done and time you report as
'0.0760810375213623' is actually the time to execute logs scanning code.
However, if rebalancing perform just a little bit slower after topology
update, then first scan of logs is failed, you sleep for whole one
second and rescan logs and there you got your message and report it as
'1.02205491065979'.
Under different conditions, dockerized application may run a little
slower or a little faster, that depends on overall system load, free
memory, etc. I've tried to increase load on my laptop by running browser
or maven build, and time to scan logs may fluctuate from 0.02 to 0.09 or
even 1.02 seconds. Note, that in CI environment, high system load from
tenants is a quite ordinary situation.
Suppose we adopted rebalance improvements and all versions after 2.9.0
would perform within 1 second just as 2.9.0 itself. Then your benchmark
would either report false negative (e.g. 0.02 for master and 0.03 for
PR), while actually on next re-run it would pass (e.g. 0.07 for master
and 0.03 for PR). That's not quite the 'stable and non-flacky' test
Ignite community wants.
What suggestions do you have to improve benchmark measurement accuracy?
A third question is about PME free switch benchmark. Under some
conditions, LongTxStreamerApplication actually hangs up PME. It need to
be investigated further, but either this was due to persistence enabled
or due to missing -DIGNITE_ALLOW_ATOMIC_OPS_IN_TX=false
Can you share some details about IGNITE_ALLOW_ATOMIC_OPS_IN_TX option?
Also, have you had performed a test of PME free switch with
persistence-enabled caches?
On 09.07.2020 10:11, Max Shonichev wrote:
Anton,
well, strange thing, but clean up and rerun helped.
Ubuntu 18.04
SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
ducktape version: 0.7.7
session_id: 2020-07-06--003
run time: 4 minutes 44.835 seconds
tests run: 5
passed: 5
failed: 0
ignored: 0
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
status: PASS
run time: 41.927 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 1.02205491065979}
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Anton,
I've prepared a PoC of running Tiden in dockerized environment.
The code is in fork of your repo at
https://github.com/mshonichev/ignite.git, branch 'ignite-ducktape',
module 'integration-tests.
Steps to run PoC are as follows:
```
$ mkdir -p $HOME/tiden_poc
$ cd $HOME/tiden_poc
$ git clone -b ignite-ducktape https://github.com/mshonichev/ignite.git
$ cd ignite
$ scripts/build.sh
$ cd modules/integration-tests
$ mvn -DskipTests -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true verify
```
Few changes in Tiden 0.6.5 include ability to set num_nodes upon
application start and minor fixes in API.
Most of the work to run in docker done by external bash scripts, so no
changes in tests themselves would be required to run them in bare-metal.
You can run them manually, or as a part of maven verify stage, they are
hooked in pom.xml via maven-exec-plugin for that.
I've noted comments in your PoC and instead of single docker image
we prepare a bunch of images:
- tiden-master
- tiden-slave:${JDK_VERSION}
- tiden-artifacts-ignite:${IGNITE_VERSION}
- tiden-artifacts-...
During provisioning stage, all those images are hotlinked via separate
volumes into /opt container dir. Tiden itself is installed as package
either of specific version or in 'develop' mode.
Also, it turns out that using `docker run --user=...` work great only in
MacOs or in Ubuntu under default user. Trying to run ducktests under
user with UID != 1000 produces unaccessible files in `results` dir. So,
in Tiden PoC I've fixed that too, you can review Dockerfile's in
modules/integration-tests/tiden/docker/ dir.
Next, I've recreated all your benchmarks, their code is in
modules/integration-tests/tiden/suites/benchmarks
Your Java applications copy-pasted with no changes into
modules/integration-tests/src, a thin Python wrapper over it is in
modules/integration-tests/apps/igniteaware.app
Unfortunately, no version-filtering decorators yet present, so instead
of single run across all versions, run-tests.sh internally runs Tiden
several times.
Please, checkout sources and share some thoughts.
On 09.07.2020 10:11, Max Shonichev wrote:
Anton,
well, strange thing, but clean up and rerun helped.
Ubuntu 18.04
SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
ducktape version: 0.7.7
session_id: 2020-07-06--003
run time: 4 minutes 44.835 seconds
tests run: 5
passed: 5
failed: 0
ignored: 0
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
status: PASS
run time: 41.927 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 1.02205491065979}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 51.985 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 0.0760810375213623}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 4.283 seconds
{"Streamed txs": "1900", "Measure duration (ms)": "34818", "Worst
latency (ms)": "31035"}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 13.089 seconds
{"Streamed txs": "73134", "Measure duration (ms)": "35843", "Worst
latency (ms)": "139"}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.spark_integration_test.SparkIntegrationTest.test_spark_client
status: PASS
run time: 53.332 seconds
MacBook
SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
ducktape version: 0.7.7
session_id: 2020-07-06--001
run time: 6 minutes 58.612 seconds
tests run: 5
passed: 5
failed: 0
ignored: 0
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
status: PASS
run time: 48.724 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 3.2574470043182373}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 23.210
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
> Have you had a chance to deploy ducktests in bare metal?
Working on servers obtaining.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:11 AM Max Shonichev wrote:
> Anton,
>
> well, strange thing, but clean up and rerun helped.
>
>
> Ubuntu 18.04
>
>
>
> SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
> ducktape version: 0.7.7
> session_id: 2020-07-06--003
> run time: 4 minutes 44.835 seconds
> tests run:5
> passed: 5
> failed: 0
> ignored: 0
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
> status: PASS
> run time: 41.927 seconds
> {"Rebalanced in (sec)": 1.02205491065979}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=dev
> status: PASS
> run time: 51.985 seconds
> {"Rebalanced in (sec)": 0.0760810375213623}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 4.283 seconds
> {"Streamed txs": "1900", "Measure duration (ms)": "34818", "Worst
> latency (ms)": "31035"}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=dev
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 13.089 seconds
> {"Streamed txs": "73134", "Measure duration (ms)": "35843", "Worst
> latency (ms)": "139"}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.spark_integration_test.SparkIntegrationTest.test_spark_client
> status: PASS
> run time: 53.332 seconds
>
>
>
>
> MacBook
>
>
> SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
> ducktape version: 0.7.7
> session_id: 2020-07-06--001
> run time: 6 minutes 58.612 seconds
> tests run:5
> passed: 5
> failed: 0
> ignored: 0
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
> status: PASS
> run time: 48.724 seconds
> {"Rebalanced in (sec)": 3.2574470043182373}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=dev
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 23.210 seconds
> {"Rebalanced in (sec)": 2.165921211242676}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 12.659 seconds
> {"Streamed txs": "642", "Measure duration (ms)": "33177", "Worst latency
> (ms)": "31063"}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=dev
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 57.257 seconds
> {"Streamed txs": "32924", "Measure duration (ms)": "48252", "Worst
> latency (ms)": "1010"}
>
>
> test_id:
>
> ignitetest.tests.spark_integration_test.SparkIntegrationTest.test_spark_client
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 36.317 seconds
>
> =
>
> while relative numbers proportion remains the same for different Ignite
> versions, absolute number for mac/linux differ more then twice.
>
> I'm finalizing code with 'local Tiden' appliance for your tests. PR
> would be ready soon.
>
> Have you had a chance to deploy ducktests in bare metal?
>
>
>
> On 06.07.2020 14:27, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> > Max,
> >
> > Thanks for the check!
> >
> >> Is it OK for those tests to fail?
> > No.
> > I see really strange things at logs.
> > Looks like you have concurrent ducktests run started not expected
> services,
> > and this broke the tests.
> > Could you please clean up the docker (use clean-up script [1]).
> > Compile sources (use script [2]) and rerun the tests.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/dc98ee9df90b25eb5d928090b0e78b48cae2392e/modules/ducktests/tests/docker/clean_up.sh
> > [2]
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Anton,
well, strange thing, but clean up and rerun helped.
Ubuntu 18.04
SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
ducktape version: 0.7.7
session_id: 2020-07-06--003
run time: 4 minutes 44.835 seconds
tests run:5
passed: 5
failed: 0
ignored: 0
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
status: PASS
run time: 41.927 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 1.02205491065979}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 51.985 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 0.0760810375213623}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 4.283 seconds
{"Streamed txs": "1900", "Measure duration (ms)": "34818", "Worst
latency (ms)": "31035"}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 13.089 seconds
{"Streamed txs": "73134", "Measure duration (ms)": "35843", "Worst
latency (ms)": "139"}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.spark_integration_test.SparkIntegrationTest.test_spark_client
status: PASS
run time: 53.332 seconds
MacBook
SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS)
ducktape version: 0.7.7
session_id: 2020-07-06--001
run time: 6 minutes 58.612 seconds
tests run:5
passed: 5
failed: 0
ignored: 0
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1
status: PASS
run time: 48.724 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 3.2574470043182373}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 23.210 seconds
{"Rebalanced in (sec)": 2.165921211242676}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 12.659 seconds
{"Streamed txs": "642", "Measure duration (ms)": "33177", "Worst latency
(ms)": "31063"}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=dev
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 57.257 seconds
{"Streamed txs": "32924", "Measure duration (ms)": "48252", "Worst
latency (ms)": "1010"}
test_id:
ignitetest.tests.spark_integration_test.SparkIntegrationTest.test_spark_client
status: PASS
run time: 1 minute 36.317 seconds
=
while relative numbers proportion remains the same for different Ignite
versions, absolute number for mac/linux differ more then twice.
I'm finalizing code with 'local Tiden' appliance for your tests. PR
would be ready soon.
Have you had a chance to deploy ducktests in bare metal?
On 06.07.2020 14:27, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
Max,
Thanks for the check!
Is it OK for those tests to fail?
No.
I see really strange things at logs.
Looks like you have concurrent ducktests run started not expected services,
and this broke the tests.
Could you please clean up the docker (use clean-up script [1]).
Compile sources (use script [2]) and rerun the tests.
[1]
https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/dc98ee9df90b25eb5d928090b0e78b48cae2392e/modules/ducktests/tests/docker/clean_up.sh
[2]
https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/3c39983005bd9eaf8cb458950d942fb592fff85c/scripts/build.sh
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
Hello, Maxim.
Thanks for writing down the minutes.
There is no such thing as «Nikolay team» on the dev-list.
I propose to focus on product requirements and what we want to gain from
the framework instead of taking into account the needs of some team.
Can you, please, write
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Nikolay, Can you, please, write down your version of requirements so we can reach a > consensus on that and therefore move to the discussion of the > implementation? I guess that Max's requirements quite similar to your requirements: 1. The framework should support deployment on hardware/docker/AWS ... 2. Integration with TeamCity/Jenkins 3. Clients Java applications contain basic tests logic, Python for deployment/logs analysis 4. Tests can be executed against the dev branch/release build 5. The framework should allow us to create stable performance tests 6. Clear reporting Max, please correct me if I miss something. пн, 6 июл. 2020 г. в 14:27, Anton Vinogradov : > Max, > > Thanks for the check! > > > Is it OK for those tests to fail? > No. > I see really strange things at logs. > Looks like you have concurrent ducktests run started not expected services, > and this broke the tests. > Could you please clean up the docker (use clean-up script [1]). > Compile sources (use script [2]) and rerun the tests. > > [1] > > https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/dc98ee9df90b25eb5d928090b0e78b48cae2392e/modules/ducktests/tests/docker/clean_up.sh > [2] > > https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/3c39983005bd9eaf8cb458950d942fb592fff85c/scripts/build.sh > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > Hello, Maxim. > > > > Thanks for writing down the minutes. > > > > There is no such thing as «Nikolay team» on the dev-list. > > I propose to focus on product requirements and what we want to gain from > > the framework instead of taking into account the needs of some team. > > > > Can you, please, write down your version of requirements so we can reach > a > > consensus on that and therefore move to the discussion of the > > implementation? > > > > > 6 июля 2020 г., в 11:18, Max Shonichev > написал(а): > > > > > > Yes, Denis, > > > > > > common ground seems to be as follows: > > > Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov would try to prepare and run PoC > > over physical hosts and share benchmark results. In the meantime, while I > > strongly believe that dockerized approach to benchmarking is a road to > > misleading and false positives, I'll prepare a PoC of Tiden in dockerized > > environment to support 'fast development prototyping' usecase Nikolay > team > > insist on. It should be a matter of few days. > > > > > > As a side note, I've run Anton PoC locally and would like to have some > > comments about results: > > > > > > Test system: Ubuntu 18.04, docker 19.03.6 > > > Test commands: > > > > > > > > > git clone -b ignite-ducktape g...@github.com: > anton-vinogradov/ignite.git > > > cd ignite > > > mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true > > -Pall-java,licenses,lgpl,examples,!spark-2.4,!spark,!scala > > > cd modules/ducktests/tests/docker > > > ./run_tests.sh > > > > > > Test results: > > > > > > > > > SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS) > > > ducktape version: 0.7.7 > > > session_id: 2020-07-05--004 > > > run time: 7 minutes 36.360 seconds > > > tests run:5 > > > passed: 3 > > > failed: 2 > > > ignored: 0 > > > > > > > > > test_id: > > > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1 > > > status: FAIL > > > run time: 3 minutes 12.232 seconds > > > > > > > > > test_id: > > > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6 > > > status: FAIL > > > run time: 1 minute 33.076 seconds > > > > > > > > > Is it OK for those tests to fail? Attached is full test report > > > > > > > > > On 02.07.2020 17:46, Denis Magda wrote: > > >> Folks, > > >> Please share the summary of that Slack conversation here for records > > once > > >> you find common ground. > > >> - > > >> Denis > > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:22 AM Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > >>> Igniters. > > >>> > > >>> All who are interested in integration testing framework discussion > are > > >>> welcome into slack channel - > > >>> > > > https://join.slack.com/share/zt-fk2ovehf-TcomEAwiXaPzLyNKZbmfzw?cdn_fallback=2 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > 2 июля 2020 г., в 13:06, Anton Vinogradov > написал(а): > > > > Max, > > Thanks for joining us. > > > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > > > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > > No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and > > >>> orchestration. > > All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. > > As to Ducktests: > > Docker is responsible for deployments during development. > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Max, Thanks for the check! > Is it OK for those tests to fail? No. I see really strange things at logs. Looks like you have concurrent ducktests run started not expected services, and this broke the tests. Could you please clean up the docker (use clean-up script [1]). Compile sources (use script [2]) and rerun the tests. [1] https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/dc98ee9df90b25eb5d928090b0e78b48cae2392e/modules/ducktests/tests/docker/clean_up.sh [2] https://github.com/anton-vinogradov/ignite/blob/3c39983005bd9eaf8cb458950d942fb592fff85c/scripts/build.sh On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Maxim. > > Thanks for writing down the minutes. > > There is no such thing as «Nikolay team» on the dev-list. > I propose to focus on product requirements and what we want to gain from > the framework instead of taking into account the needs of some team. > > Can you, please, write down your version of requirements so we can reach a > consensus on that and therefore move to the discussion of the > implementation? > > > 6 июля 2020 г., в 11:18, Max Shonichev написал(а): > > > > Yes, Denis, > > > > common ground seems to be as follows: > > Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov would try to prepare and run PoC > over physical hosts and share benchmark results. In the meantime, while I > strongly believe that dockerized approach to benchmarking is a road to > misleading and false positives, I'll prepare a PoC of Tiden in dockerized > environment to support 'fast development prototyping' usecase Nikolay team > insist on. It should be a matter of few days. > > > > As a side note, I've run Anton PoC locally and would like to have some > comments about results: > > > > Test system: Ubuntu 18.04, docker 19.03.6 > > Test commands: > > > > > > git clone -b ignite-ducktape g...@github.com:anton-vinogradov/ignite.git > > cd ignite > > mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true > -Pall-java,licenses,lgpl,examples,!spark-2.4,!spark,!scala > > cd modules/ducktests/tests/docker > > ./run_tests.sh > > > > Test results: > > > > > SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS) > > ducktape version: 0.7.7 > > session_id: 2020-07-05--004 > > run time: 7 minutes 36.360 seconds > > tests run:5 > > passed: 3 > > failed: 2 > > ignored: 0 > > > > > test_id: > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1 > > status: FAIL > > run time: 3 minutes 12.232 seconds > > > > > test_id: > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6 > > status: FAIL > > run time: 1 minute 33.076 seconds > > > > > > Is it OK for those tests to fail? Attached is full test report > > > > > > On 02.07.2020 17:46, Denis Magda wrote: > >> Folks, > >> Please share the summary of that Slack conversation here for records > once > >> you find common ground. > >> - > >> Denis > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:22 AM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > >>> Igniters. > >>> > >>> All who are interested in integration testing framework discussion are > >>> welcome into slack channel - > >>> > https://join.slack.com/share/zt-fk2ovehf-TcomEAwiXaPzLyNKZbmfzw?cdn_fallback=2 > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2 июля 2020 г., в 13:06, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): > > Max, > Thanks for joining us. > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and > >>> orchestration. > All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. > As to Ducktests: > Docker is responsible for deployments during development. > CI/CD is responsible for deployments during release and nightly > checks. > >>> It's up to the team to chose AWS, VM, BareMetal, and even OS. > Ducktape is responsible for orchestration. > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel > >>> fashion, > > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > No. Ducktape may start any service in parallel. See Pme-free benchmark > >>> [1] for details. > > > if we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, > with > > Ansible or Chef. > Sure, because a way of deploy depends on infrastructure. > How can we be sure that OS we use and the restrictions we have will be > >>> compatible with Tiden? > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all > dependencies > > into one uber-image ... > and > > I
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Maxim. Thanks for writing down the minutes. There is no such thing as «Nikolay team» on the dev-list. I propose to focus on product requirements and what we want to gain from the framework instead of taking into account the needs of some team. Can you, please, write down your version of requirements so we can reach a consensus on that and therefore move to the discussion of the implementation? > 6 июля 2020 г., в 11:18, Max Shonichev написал(а): > > Yes, Denis, > > common ground seems to be as follows: > Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov would try to prepare and run PoC over > physical hosts and share benchmark results. In the meantime, while I strongly > believe that dockerized approach to benchmarking is a road to misleading and > false positives, I'll prepare a PoC of Tiden in dockerized environment to > support 'fast development prototyping' usecase Nikolay team insist on. It > should be a matter of few days. > > As a side note, I've run Anton PoC locally and would like to have some > comments about results: > > Test system: Ubuntu 18.04, docker 19.03.6 > Test commands: > > > git clone -b ignite-ducktape g...@github.com:anton-vinogradov/ignite.git > cd ignite > mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true > -Pall-java,licenses,lgpl,examples,!spark-2.4,!spark,!scala > cd modules/ducktests/tests/docker > ./run_tests.sh > > Test results: > > SESSION REPORT (ALL TESTS) > ducktape version: 0.7.7 > session_id: 2020-07-05--004 > run time: 7 minutes 36.360 seconds > tests run:5 > passed: 3 > failed: 2 > ignored: 0 > > test_id: > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.add_node_rebalance_test.AddNodeRebalanceTest.test_add_node.version=2.8.1 > status: FAIL > run time: 3 minutes 12.232 seconds > > test_id: > ignitetest.tests.benchmarks.pme_free_switch_test.PmeFreeSwitchTest.test.version=2.7.6 > status: FAIL > run time: 1 minute 33.076 seconds > > > Is it OK for those tests to fail? Attached is full test report > > > On 02.07.2020 17:46, Denis Magda wrote: >> Folks, >> Please share the summary of that Slack conversation here for records once >> you find common ground. >> - >> Denis >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:22 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: >>> Igniters. >>> >>> All who are interested in integration testing framework discussion are >>> welcome into slack channel - >>> https://join.slack.com/share/zt-fk2ovehf-TcomEAwiXaPzLyNKZbmfzw?cdn_fallback=2 >>> >>> >>> 2 июля 2020 г., в 13:06, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): Max, Thanks for joining us. > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and >>> orchestration. All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. As to Ducktests: Docker is responsible for deployments during development. CI/CD is responsible for deployments during release and nightly checks. >>> It's up to the team to chose AWS, VM, BareMetal, and even OS. Ducktape is responsible for orchestration. > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel >>> fashion, > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. No. Ducktape may start any service in parallel. See Pme-free benchmark >>> [1] for details. > if we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > Ansible or Chef. Sure, because a way of deploy depends on infrastructure. How can we be sure that OS we use and the restrictions we have will be >>> compatible with Tiden? > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies > into one uber-image ... and > I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed > virtual networks. It is very important not to confuse the test's development (docker image >>> you're talking about) and real deployment. > If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does All actions can be performed in parallel. See how Ducktests [2] starts cluster in parallel for example. [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-59adde2a2ab7dc17aea6c65153dfcda7R84 [2] >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-d6a7b19f30f349d426b8894a40389cf5R79 On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:00 PM Nikolay Izhikov >>> wrote: Hello, Maxim. > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on >>> dependencies being deployed
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Folks, Please share the summary of that Slack conversation here for records once you find common ground. - Denis On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:22 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Igniters. > > All who are interested in integration testing framework discussion are > welcome into slack channel - > https://join.slack.com/share/zt-fk2ovehf-TcomEAwiXaPzLyNKZbmfzw?cdn_fallback=2 > > > > > 2 июля 2020 г., в 13:06, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): > > > > Max, > > Thanks for joining us. > > > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > > > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > > No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and > orchestration. > > All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. > > As to Ducktests: > > Docker is responsible for deployments during development. > > CI/CD is responsible for deployments during release and nightly checks. > It's up to the team to chose AWS, VM, BareMetal, and even OS. > > Ducktape is responsible for orchestration. > > > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel > fashion, > > >while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > No. Ducktape may start any service in parallel. See Pme-free benchmark > [1] for details. > > > > > if we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > > > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > > > Ansible or Chef. > > Sure, because a way of deploy depends on infrastructure. > > How can we be sure that OS we use and the restrictions we have will be > compatible with Tiden? > > > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies > > > into one uber-image ... > > and > > > I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed > > >virtual networks. > > It is very important not to confuse the test's development (docker image > you're talking about) and real deployment. > > > > > If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does > > All actions can be performed in parallel. > > See how Ducktests [2] starts cluster in parallel for example. > > > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-59adde2a2ab7dc17aea6c65153dfcda7R84 > > [2] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-d6a7b19f30f349d426b8894a40389cf5R79 > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:00 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > Hello, Maxim. > > > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts > > > > Why do you think that maintaining deploy scripts coupled with the > testing framework is an advantage? > > I thought we want to see and maintain deployment scripts separate from > the testing framework. > > > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel > fashion, while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > > > Can you, please, clarify, what actions do you have in mind? > > And why we want to execute them concurrently? > > Ignite node start, Client application execution can be done concurrently > with the ducktape approach. > > > > > If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > Ansible or Chef > > > > We shouldn’t take some user approach as an argument in this discussion. > Let’s discuss a general approach for all users of the Ignite. Anyway, what > is wrong with the external deployment script approach? > > > > We, as a community, should provide several ways to run integration tests > out-of-the-box AND the ability to customize deployment regarding the user > landscape. > > > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all > dependencies into one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant > solution however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. > > > > Docker image should be used only by the Ignite developers to test > something locally. > > It’s not intended for some real-world testing. > > > > The main issue with the Tiden that I see, it tested and maintained as a > closed source solution. > > This can lead to the hard to solve problems when we start using and > maintaining it as an open-source solution. > > Like, how many developers used Tiden? And how many of developers were > not authors of the Tiden itself? > > > > > > > 2 июля 2020 г., в 12:30, Max Shonichev > написал(а): > > > > > > Anton, Nikolay, > > > > > > Let's agree on what we are arguing about: whether it is about "like or > don't like" or about technical properties of suggested solutions. > > > > > > If it is about likes and dislikes, then the whole discussion is > meaningless. However, I hope together we can analyse pros and cons > carefully. > > > > > > As far as I can understand now, two main differences between ducktape > and tiden is that: > > > > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Igniters. All who are interested in integration testing framework discussion are welcome into slack channel - https://join.slack.com/share/zt-fk2ovehf-TcomEAwiXaPzLyNKZbmfzw?cdn_fallback=2 > 2 июля 2020 г., в 13:06, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): > > Max, > Thanks for joining us. > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and orchestration. > All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. > As to Ducktests: > Docker is responsible for deployments during development. > CI/CD is responsible for deployments during release and nightly checks. It's > up to the team to chose AWS, VM, BareMetal, and even OS. > Ducktape is responsible for orchestration. > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > >while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > No. Ducktape may start any service in parallel. See Pme-free benchmark [1] > for details. > > > if we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > > Ansible or Chef. > Sure, because a way of deploy depends on infrastructure. > How can we be sure that OS we use and the restrictions we have will be > compatible with Tiden? > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies > > into one uber-image ... > and > > I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed > >virtual networks. > It is very important not to confuse the test's development (docker image > you're talking about) and real deployment. > > > If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does > All actions can be performed in parallel. > See how Ducktests [2] starts cluster in parallel for example. > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-59adde2a2ab7dc17aea6c65153dfcda7R84 > [2] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-d6a7b19f30f349d426b8894a40389cf5R79 > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:00 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Maxim. > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > > dependencies being deployed by external scripts > > Why do you think that maintaining deploy scripts coupled with the testing > framework is an advantage? > I thought we want to see and maintain deployment scripts separate from the > testing framework. > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > Can you, please, clarify, what actions do you have in mind? > And why we want to execute them concurrently? > Ignite node start, Client application execution can be done concurrently with > the ducktape approach. > > > If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > > Ansible or Chef > > We shouldn’t take some user approach as an argument in this discussion. Let’s > discuss a general approach for all users of the Ignite. Anyway, what is wrong > with the external deployment script approach? > > We, as a community, should provide several ways to run integration tests > out-of-the-box AND the ability to customize deployment regarding the user > landscape. > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies > > into one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant solution > > however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. > > Docker image should be used only by the Ignite developers to test something > locally. > It’s not intended for some real-world testing. > > The main issue with the Tiden that I see, it tested and maintained as a > closed source solution. > This can lead to the hard to solve problems when we start using and > maintaining it as an open-source solution. > Like, how many developers used Tiden? And how many of developers were not > authors of the Tiden itself? > > > > 2 июля 2020 г., в 12:30, Max Shonichev написал(а): > > > > Anton, Nikolay, > > > > Let's agree on what we are arguing about: whether it is about "like or > > don't like" or about technical properties of suggested solutions. > > > > If it is about likes and dislikes, then the whole discussion is > > meaningless. However, I hope together we can analyse pros and cons > > carefully. > > > > As far as I can understand now, two main differences between ducktape and > > tiden is that: > > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > > > As for me, these are very important properties for distributed testing > > framework. > > > > First property let
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Max, Thanks for joining us. > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. No. It is important to distinguish development, deploy, and orchestration. All-in-one solutions have extremely limited usability. As to Ducktests: Docker is responsible for deployments during development. CI/CD is responsible for deployments during release and nightly checks. It's up to the team to chose AWS, VM, BareMetal, and even OS. Ducktape is responsible for orchestration. > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, >while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. No. Ducktape may start any service in parallel. See Pme-free benchmark [1] for details. > if we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > Ansible or Chef. Sure, because a way of deploy depends on infrastructure. How can we be sure that OS we use and the restrictions we have will be compatible with Tiden? > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies > into one uber-image ... and > I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed >virtual networks. It is very important not to confuse the test's development (docker image you're talking about) and real deployment. > If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does All actions can be performed in parallel. See how Ducktests [2] starts cluster in parallel for example. [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-59adde2a2ab7dc17aea6c65153dfcda7R84 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967/files#diff-d6a7b19f30f349d426b8894a40389cf5R79 On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:00 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Maxim. > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts > > Why do you think that maintaining deploy scripts coupled with the testing > framework is an advantage? > I thought we want to see and maintain deployment scripts separate from the > testing framework. > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > Can you, please, clarify, what actions do you have in mind? > And why we want to execute them concurrently? > Ignite node start, Client application execution can be done concurrently > with the ducktape approach. > > > If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > Ansible or Chef > > We shouldn’t take some user approach as an argument in this discussion. > Let’s discuss a general approach for all users of the Ignite. Anyway, what > is wrong with the external deployment script approach? > > We, as a community, should provide several ways to run integration tests > out-of-the-box AND the ability to customize deployment regarding the user > landscape. > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies > into one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant solution > however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. > > Docker image should be used only by the Ignite developers to test > something locally. > It’s not intended for some real-world testing. > > The main issue with the Tiden that I see, it tested and maintained as a > closed source solution. > This can lead to the hard to solve problems when we start using and > maintaining it as an open-source solution. > Like, how many developers used Tiden? And how many of developers were not > authors of the Tiden itself? > > > > 2 июля 2020 г., в 12:30, Max Shonichev написал(а): > > > > Anton, Nikolay, > > > > Let's agree on what we are arguing about: whether it is about "like or > don't like" or about technical properties of suggested solutions. > > > > If it is about likes and dislikes, then the whole discussion is > meaningless. However, I hope together we can analyse pros and cons > carefully. > > > > As far as I can understand now, two main differences between ducktape > and tiden is that: > > > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > > > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > > > As for me, these are very important properties for distributed testing > framework. > > > > First property let us easily reuse tiden in existing infrastructures, > for example, during Zookeeper IEP testing at Sberbank site we used the same > tiden scripts that we use in our lab, the only change was putting a list of > hosts into config. > > > > If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some > deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with > Ansible or Chef. > > > > > > You have
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Maxim. > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts Why do you think that maintaining deploy scripts coupled with the testing framework is an advantage? I thought we want to see and maintain deployment scripts separate from the testing framework. > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. Can you, please, clarify, what actions do you have in mind? And why we want to execute them concurrently? Ignite node start, Client application execution can be done concurrently with the ducktape approach. > If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some deployment > scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with Ansible or Chef We shouldn’t take some user approach as an argument in this discussion. Let’s discuss a general approach for all users of the Ignite. Anyway, what is wrong with the external deployment script approach? We, as a community, should provide several ways to run integration tests out-of-the-box AND the ability to customize deployment regarding the user landscape. > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies into > one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant solution however, that > effectively limits you to single-host testing. Docker image should be used only by the Ignite developers to test something locally. It’s not intended for some real-world testing. The main issue with the Tiden that I see, it tested and maintained as a closed source solution. This can lead to the hard to solve problems when we start using and maintaining it as an open-source solution. Like, how many developers used Tiden? And how many of developers were not authors of the Tiden itself? > 2 июля 2020 г., в 12:30, Max Shonichev написал(а): > > Anton, Nikolay, > > Let's agree on what we are arguing about: whether it is about "like or don't > like" or about technical properties of suggested solutions. > > If it is about likes and dislikes, then the whole discussion is meaningless. > However, I hope together we can analyse pros and cons carefully. > > As far as I can understand now, two main differences between ducktape and > tiden is that: > > 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on > dependencies being deployed by external scripts. > > 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, > while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. > > As for me, these are very important properties for distributed testing > framework. > > First property let us easily reuse tiden in existing infrastructures, for > example, during Zookeeper IEP testing at Sberbank site we used the same tiden > scripts that we use in our lab, the only change was putting a list of hosts > into config. > > If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some deployment > scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with Ansible or Chef. > > > You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies into > one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant solution, > however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. > > I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed > virtual networks. We used to go that way, but quickly found that it is more > of the hype than real work. In real environments, there are problems with > routing, DNS, multicast and broadcast traffic, and many others, that turn > docker-based distributed solution into a fragile hard-to-maintain monster. > > Please, if you believe otherwise, perform a run of your PoC over at least two > physical hosts and share results with us. > > If you consider that one physical docker host is enough, please, don't > overlook that we want to run real scale scenarios, with 50-100 cache groups, > persistence enabled and a millions of keys loaded. > > Practical limit for such configurations is 4-6 nodes per single physical > host. Otherwise, tests become flaky due to resource starvation. > > Please, if you believe otherwise, perform at least a 10 of runs of your PoC > with other tests running at TC (we're targeting TeamCity, right?) and share > results so we could check if the numbers are reproducible. > > I stress this once more: functional integration tests are OK to run in Docker > and CI, but running benchmarks in Docker is a big NO GO. > > > Second property let us write tests that require real-parallel actions over > hosts. > > For example, agreed scenario for PME benchmarkduring "PME optimization > stream" was as follows: > > - 10 server nodes, preloaded with 1M of keys > - 4 client nodes perform transactional load (client nodes physically > separated from server nodes) > - during load: > -- 5 server nodes stopped in parallel > -- after 1 minute, all 5 nodes are
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Anton, Nikolay, Let's agree on what we are arguing about: whether it is about "like or don't like" or about technical properties of suggested solutions. If it is about likes and dislikes, then the whole discussion is meaningless. However, I hope together we can analyse pros and cons carefully. As far as I can understand now, two main differences between ducktape and tiden is that: 1. tiden can deploy artifacts by itself, while ducktape relies on dependencies being deployed by external scripts. 2. tiden can execute actions over remote nodes in real parallel fashion, while ducktape internally does all actions sequentially. As for me, these are very important properties for distributed testing framework. First property let us easily reuse tiden in existing infrastructures, for example, during Zookeeper IEP testing at Sberbank site we used the same tiden scripts that we use in our lab, the only change was putting a list of hosts into config. If we used ducktape solution we would have to instead prepare some deployment scripts to pre-initialize Sberbank hosts, for example, with Ansible or Chef. You have solved this deficiency with docker by putting all dependencies into one uber-image and that looks like simple and elegant solution, however, that effectively limits you to single-host testing. I guess we all know about docker hyped ability to run over distributed virtual networks. We used to go that way, but quickly found that it is more of the hype than real work. In real environments, there are problems with routing, DNS, multicast and broadcast traffic, and many others, that turn docker-based distributed solution into a fragile hard-to-maintain monster. Please, if you believe otherwise, perform a run of your PoC over at least two physical hosts and share results with us. If you consider that one physical docker host is enough, please, don't overlook that we want to run real scale scenarios, with 50-100 cache groups, persistence enabled and a millions of keys loaded. Practical limit for such configurations is 4-6 nodes per single physical host. Otherwise, tests become flaky due to resource starvation. Please, if you believe otherwise, perform at least a 10 of runs of your PoC with other tests running at TC (we're targeting TeamCity, right?) and share results so we could check if the numbers are reproducible. I stress this once more: functional integration tests are OK to run in Docker and CI, but running benchmarks in Docker is a big NO GO. Second property let us write tests that require real-parallel actions over hosts. For example, agreed scenario for PME benchmarkduring "PME optimization stream" was as follows: - 10 server nodes, preloaded with 1M of keys - 4 client nodes perform transactional load (client nodes physically separated from server nodes) - during load: -- 5 server nodes stopped in parallel -- after 1 minute, all 5 nodes are started in parallel - load stopped, logs are analysed for exchange times. If we had stopped and started 5 nodes one-by-one, as ducktape does, then partition map exchange merge would not happen and we could not have measured PME optimizations for that case. These are limitations of ducktape that we believe as a more important argument "against" than you provide "for". On 30.06.2020 14:58, Anton Vinogradov wrote: Folks, First, I've created PR [1] with ducktests improvements PR contains the following changes - Pme-free switch proof-benchmark (2.7.6 vs master) - Ability to check (compare with) previous releases (eg. 2.7.6 & 2.8) - Global refactoring -- benchmarks javacode simplification -- services python and java classes code deduplication -- fail-fast checks for java and python (eg. application should explicitly write it finished with success) -- simple results extraction from tests and benchmarks -- javacode now configurable from tests/benchmarks -- proper SIGTERM handling at javacode (eg. it may finish last operation and log results) -- docker volume now marked as delegated to increase execution speed for mac & win users -- Ignite cluster now start in parallel (start speed-up) -- Ignite can be configured at test/benchmark - full and module assembly scripts added Great job done! But let me remind one of Apache Ignite principles: week of thinking save months of development. Second, I'd like to propose to accept ducktests [2] (ducktape integration) as a target "PoC check & real topology benchmarking tool". Ducktape pros - Developed for distributed system by distributed system developers. So does Tiden - Developed since 2014, stable. Tiden is also pretty stable, and development start date is not a good argument, for example pytest is since 2004, pytest-xdist (plugin for distributed testing) is since 2010, but we don't see it as a alternative at all. - Proven usability by usage at Kafka. Tiden is proven usable by usage at GridGain and Sberbank deployments. Core, storage,
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Folks, First, I've created PR [1] with ducktests improvements PR contains the following changes - Pme-free switch proof-benchmark (2.7.6 vs master) - Ability to check (compare with) previous releases (eg. 2.7.6 & 2.8) - Global refactoring -- benchmarks javacode simplification -- services python and java classes code deduplication -- fail-fast checks for java and python (eg. application should explicitly write it finished with success) -- simple results extraction from tests and benchmarks -- javacode now configurable from tests/benchmarks -- proper SIGTERM handling at javacode (eg. it may finish last operation and log results) -- docker volume now marked as delegated to increase execution speed for mac & win users -- Ignite cluster now start in parallel (start speed-up) -- Ignite can be configured at test/benchmark - full and module assembly scripts added Second, I'd like to propose to accept ducktests [2] (ducktape integration) as a target "PoC check & real topology benchmarking tool". Ducktape pros - Developed for distributed system by distributed system developers. - Developed since 2014, stable. - Proven usability by usage at Kafka. - Dozens of dozens tests and benchmarks at Kafka as a great example pack. - Built-in Docker support for rapid development and checks. - Great for CI automation. As an additional motivation, at least 3 teams - IEP-45 team (to check crash-recovery speed-up (discovery and Zabbix speed-up)) - Ignite SE Plugins team (to check plugin's features does not slow-down or broke AI features) - Ignite SE QA team (to append already developed smoke/load/failover tests to AI codebase) now, wait for ducktest merge to start checking cases they working on in AI way. Thoughts? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7967 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-ducktape On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:22 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Maxim. > > Thank you for so detailed explanation. > > Can we put the content of this discussion somewhere on the wiki? > So It doesn’t get lost. > > I divide the answer in several parts. From the requirements to the > implementation. > So, if we agreed on the requirements we can proceed with the discussion of > the implementation. > > 1. Requirements: > > The main goal I want to achieve is *reproducibility* of the tests. > I’m sick and tired with the zillions of flaky, rarely failed, and almost > never failed tests in Ignite codebase. > We should start with the simplest scenarios that will be as reliable as > steel :) > > I want to know for sure: > - Is this PR makes rebalance quicker or not? > - Is this PR makes PME quicker or not? > > So, your description of the complex test scenario looks as a next step to > me. > > Anyway, It’s cool we already have one. > > The second goal is to have a strict test lifecycle as we have in JUnit and > similar frameworks. > > > It covers production-like deployment and running a scenarios over a > single database instance. > > Do you mean «single cluster» or «single host»? > > 2. Existing tests: > > > A Combinator suite allows to run set of operations concurrently over > given database instance. > > A Consumption suite allows to run a set production-like actions over > given set of Ignite/GridGain versions and compare test metrics across > versions > > A Yardstick suite > > A Stress suite that simulates hardware environment degradation > > An Ultimate, DR and Compatibility suites that performs functional > regression testing > > Regression > > Great news that we already have so many choices for testing! > Mature test base is a big +1 for Tiden. > > 3. Comparison: > > > Criteria: Test configuration > > Ducktape: single JSON string for all tests > > Tiden: any number of YaML config files, command line option for > fine-grained test configuration, ability to select/modify tests behavior > based on Ignite version. > > 1. Many YAML files can be hard to maintain. > 2. In ducktape, you can set parameters via «—parameters» option. Please, > take a look at the doc [1] > > > Criteria: Cluster control > > Tiden: additionally can address cluster as a whole and execute remote > commands in parallel. > > It seems we implement this ability in the PoC, already. > > > Criteria: Test assertions > > Tiden: simple asserts, also few customized assertion helpers. > > Ducktape: simple asserts. > > Can you, please, be more specific. > What helpers do you have in mind? > Ducktape has an asserts that waits for logfile messages or some process > finish. > > > Criteria: Test reporting > > Ducktape: limited to its own text/HTML format > > Ducktape have > 1. Text reporter > 2. Customizable HTML reporter > 3. JSON reporter. > > We can show JSON with the any template or tool. > > > Criteria: Provisioning and deployment > > Ducktape: can provision subset of hosts from cluster for test needs. > However, that means, that test can’t be scaled without test code changes. > Does not do any deploy, relies on external means, e.g. pre-packaged in >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Maxim. Thank you for so detailed explanation. Can we put the content of this discussion somewhere on the wiki? So It doesn’t get lost. I divide the answer in several parts. From the requirements to the implementation. So, if we agreed on the requirements we can proceed with the discussion of the implementation. 1. Requirements: The main goal I want to achieve is *reproducibility* of the tests. I’m sick and tired with the zillions of flaky, rarely failed, and almost never failed tests in Ignite codebase. We should start with the simplest scenarios that will be as reliable as steel :) I want to know for sure: - Is this PR makes rebalance quicker or not? - Is this PR makes PME quicker or not? So, your description of the complex test scenario looks as a next step to me. Anyway, It’s cool we already have one. The second goal is to have a strict test lifecycle as we have in JUnit and similar frameworks. > It covers production-like deployment and running a scenarios over a single > database instance. Do you mean «single cluster» or «single host»? 2. Existing tests: > A Combinator suite allows to run set of operations concurrently over given > database instance. > A Consumption suite allows to run a set production-like actions over given > set of Ignite/GridGain versions and compare test metrics across versions > A Yardstick suite > A Stress suite that simulates hardware environment degradation > An Ultimate, DR and Compatibility suites that performs functional regression > testing > Regression Great news that we already have so many choices for testing! Mature test base is a big +1 for Tiden. 3. Comparison: > Criteria: Test configuration > Ducktape: single JSON string for all tests > Tiden: any number of YaML config files, command line option for fine-grained > test configuration, ability to select/modify tests behavior based on Ignite > version. 1. Many YAML files can be hard to maintain. 2. In ducktape, you can set parameters via «—parameters» option. Please, take a look at the doc [1] > Criteria: Cluster control > Tiden: additionally can address cluster as a whole and execute remote > commands in parallel. It seems we implement this ability in the PoC, already. > Criteria: Test assertions > Tiden: simple asserts, also few customized assertion helpers. > Ducktape: simple asserts. Can you, please, be more specific. What helpers do you have in mind? Ducktape has an asserts that waits for logfile messages or some process finish. > Criteria: Test reporting > Ducktape: limited to its own text/HTML format Ducktape have 1. Text reporter 2. Customizable HTML reporter 3. JSON reporter. We can show JSON with the any template or tool. > Criteria: Provisioning and deployment > Ducktape: can provision subset of hosts from cluster for test needs. However, > that means, that test can’t be scaled without test code changes. Does not do > any deploy, relies on external means, e.g. pre-packaged in docker image, as > in PoC. This is not true. 1. We can set explicit test parameters(node number) via parameters. We can increase client count of cluster size without test code changes. 2. We have many choices for the test environment. These choices are tested and used in other projects: * docker * vagrant * private cloud(ssh access) * ec2 Please, take a look at Kafka documentation [2] > I can continue more on this, but it should be enough for now: We need to go deeper! :) [1] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html#options [2] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/tests#ec2-quickstart > 9 июня 2020 г., в 17:25, Max A. Shonichev написал(а): > > Greetings, Nikolay, > > First of all, thank you for you great effort preparing PoC of integration > testing to Ignite community. > > It’s a shame Ignite did not have at least some such tests yet, however, > GridGain, as a major contributor to Apache Ignite had a profound collection > of in-house tools to perform integration and performance testing for years > already and while we slowly consider sharing our expertise with the > community, your initiative makes us drive that process a bit faster, thanks a > lot! > > I reviewed your PoC and want to share a little about what we do on our part, > why and how, hope it would help community take proper course. > > First I’ll do a brief overview of what decisions we made and what we do have > in our private code base, next I’ll describe what we have already donated to > the public and what we plan public next, then I’ll compare both approaches > highlighting deficiencies in order to spur public discussion on the matter. > > It might seem strange to use Python to run Bash to run Java applications > because that introduces IT industry best of breed’ – the Python dependency > hell – to the Java application code base. The only strangest decision one can > made is to use Maven to run Docker to run Bash to run Python to
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Greetings, Nikolay, First of all, thank you for you great effort preparing PoC of integration testing to Ignite community. It’s a shame Ignite did not have at least some such tests yet, however, GridGain, as a major contributor to Apache Ignite had a profound collection of in-house tools to perform integration and performance testing for years already and while we slowly consider sharing our expertise with the community, your initiative makes us drive that process a bit faster, thanks a lot! I reviewed your PoC and want to share a little about what we do on our part, why and how, hope it would help community take proper course. First I’ll do a brief overview of what decisions we made and what we do have in our private code base, next I’ll describe what we have already donated to the public and what we plan public next, then I’ll compare both approaches highlighting deficiencies in order to spur public discussion on the matter. It might seem strange to use Python to run Bash to run Java applications because that introduces IT industry best of breed’ – the Python dependency hell – to the Java application code base. The only strangest decision one can made is to use Maven to run Docker to run Bash to run Python to run Bash to run Java, but desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. There are Java-based solutions for integration testing exists, e.g. Testcontainers [1], Arquillian [2], etc, and they might go well for Ignite community CI pipelines by them selves. But we also wanted to run performance tests and benchmarks, like the dreaded PME benchmark, and this is solved by totally different set of tools in Java world, e.g. Jmeter [3], OpenJMH [4], Gatling [5], etc. Speaking specifically about benchmarking, Apache Ignite community already has Yardstick [6], and there’s nothing wrong with writing PME benchmark using Yardstick, but we also wanted to be able to run scenarios like this: - put an X load to a Ignite database; - perform an Y set of operations to check how Ignite copes with operations under load. And yes, we also wanted applications under test be deployed ‘like in a production’, e.g. distributed over a set of hosts. This arises questions about provisioning and nodes affinity which I’ll cover in detail later. So we decided to put a little effort to build a simple tool to cover different integration and performance scenarios, and our QA lab first attempt was PoC-Tester [7], currently open source for all but for reporting web UI. It’s a quite simple to use 95% Java-based tool targeted to be run on a pre-release QA stage. It covers production-like deployment and running a scenarios over a single database instance. PoC-Tester scenarios consists of a sequence of tasks running sequentially or in parallel. After all tasks complete, or at any time during test, user can run logs collection task, logs are checked against exceptions and a summary of found issues and task ops/latency statistics is generated at the end of scenario. One of the main PoC-Tester features is its fire-and-forget approach to task managing. That is, you can deploy a grid and left it running for weeks, periodically firing some tasks onto it. During earliest stages of PoC-Tester development it becomes quite clear that Java application development is a tedious process and architecture decisions you take during development are slow and hard to change. For example, scenarios like this - deploy two instances of GridGain with master-slave data replication configured; - put a load on master; - perform checks on slave, or like this: - preload a 1Tb of data by using your favorite tool of choice to an Apache Ignite of version X; - run a set of functional tests running Apache Ignite version Y over preloaded data, do not fit well in the PoC-Tester workflow. So, this is why we decided to use Python as a generic scripting language of choice. Pros: - quicker prototyping and development cycles - easier to find DevOps/QA engineer with Python skills than one with Java skills - used extensively all over the world for DevOps/CI pipelines and thus has rich set of libraries for all possible integration uses cases. Cons: - Nightmare with dependencies. Better stick to specific language/libraries version. Comparing alternatives for Python-based testing framework we have considered following requirements, somewhat similar to what you’ve mentioned for Confluent [8] previously: - should be able run locally or distributed (bare metal or in the cloud) - should have built-in deployment facilities for applications under test - should separate test configuration and test code -- be able to easily reconfigure tests by simple configuration changes -- be able to easily scale test environment by simple configuration changes -- be able to perform regression testing by simple switching artifacts under test via configuration -- be able to run tests with different JDK version by simple
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Branch with duck tape created - https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-ducktape Any who are willing to contribute to PoC are welcome. > 21 мая 2020 г., в 22:33, Nikolay Izhikov написал(а): > > Hello, Denis. > > There is no rush with these improvements. > We can wait for Maxim proposal and compare two solutions :) > >> 21 мая 2020 г., в 22:24, Denis Magda написал(а): >> >> Hi Nikolay, >> >> Thanks for kicking off this conversation and sharing your findings with the >> results. That's the right initiative. I do agree that Ignite needs to have >> an integration testing framework with capabilities listed by you. >> >> As we discussed privately, I would only check if instead of >> Confluent's Ducktape library, we can use an integration testing framework >> developed by GridGain for testing of Ignite/GridGain clusters. That >> framework has been battle-tested and might be more convenient for >> Ignite-specific workloads. Let's wait for @Maksim Shonichev >> who promised to join this thread once he finishes >> preparing the usage examples of the framework. To my knowledge, Max has >> already been working on that for several days. >> >> - >> Denis >> >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 AM Nikolay Izhikov >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, Igniters. >>> >>> I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. >>> >>> Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: >>> >>> 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite on >>> «real cluster». >>> By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: >>> * client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. >>> * thin clients perform queries from some other hosts >>> * etc. >>> >>> 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some internal >>> Ignite process >>> * PME >>> * rebalance. >>> This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) in 2.7.0 faster >>> or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? >>> >>> 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite integration in >>> a real-world environment: >>> Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. >>> I think some ML solutions also should be tested in real-world deployments. >>> >>> Solution: >>> >>> I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache 2.0 license) >>> I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on the local >>> environment(docker) and it works just fine. >>> >>> PoC contains following services: >>> >>> * Simple rebalance test: >>> Start 2 server nodes, >>> Create some data with Ignite client, >>> Start one more server node, >>> Wait for rebalance finish >>> * Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: >>> Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, >>> Start 1 Ignite server node >>> Create some data with Ignite client, >>> Check data in application that queries it from Spark. >>> >>> All tests are fully automated. >>> Logs collection works just fine. >>> You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. >>> >>> Pros: >>> >>> * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to some remote >>> repository or similar). >>> * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests on different >>> JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) >>> * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as possible. >>> * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily in clusters in >>> different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, K8s, Mesos, >>> Docker, cloud providers, etc.) >>> * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems >>> * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open source project - >>> Apache Kafka. >>> * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) >>> * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance results, etc.) >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 >>> [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape >>> [3] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html >>> [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Denis. There is no rush with these improvements. We can wait for Maxim proposal and compare two solutions :) > 21 мая 2020 г., в 22:24, Denis Magda написал(а): > > Hi Nikolay, > > Thanks for kicking off this conversation and sharing your findings with the > results. That's the right initiative. I do agree that Ignite needs to have > an integration testing framework with capabilities listed by you. > > As we discussed privately, I would only check if instead of > Confluent's Ducktape library, we can use an integration testing framework > developed by GridGain for testing of Ignite/GridGain clusters. That > framework has been battle-tested and might be more convenient for > Ignite-specific workloads. Let's wait for @Maksim Shonichev > who promised to join this thread once he finishes > preparing the usage examples of the framework. To my knowledge, Max has > already been working on that for several days. > > - > Denis > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 AM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > >> Hello, Igniters. >> >> I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. >> >> Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: >> >> 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite on >> «real cluster». >> By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: >>* client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. >>* thin clients perform queries from some other hosts >>* etc. >> >> 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some internal >> Ignite process >>* PME >>* rebalance. >> This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) in 2.7.0 faster >> or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? >> >> 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite integration in >> a real-world environment: >> Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. >> I think some ML solutions also should be tested in real-world deployments. >> >> Solution: >> >> I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache 2.0 license) >> I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on the local >> environment(docker) and it works just fine. >> >> PoC contains following services: >> >>* Simple rebalance test: >>Start 2 server nodes, >>Create some data with Ignite client, >>Start one more server node, >>Wait for rebalance finish >>* Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: >>Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, >>Start 1 Ignite server node >>Create some data with Ignite client, >>Check data in application that queries it from Spark. >> >> All tests are fully automated. >> Logs collection works just fine. >> You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. >> >> Pros: >> >> * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to some remote >> repository or similar). >> * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests on different >> JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) >> * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as possible. >> * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily in clusters in >> different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, K8s, Mesos, >> Docker, cloud providers, etc.) >> * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems >> * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open source project - >> Apache Kafka. >> * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) >> * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance results, etc.) >> >> WDYT? >> >> [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 >> [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape >> [3] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html >> [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hi Nikolay, Thanks for kicking off this conversation and sharing your findings with the results. That's the right initiative. I do agree that Ignite needs to have an integration testing framework with capabilities listed by you. As we discussed privately, I would only check if instead of Confluent's Ducktape library, we can use an integration testing framework developed by GridGain for testing of Ignite/GridGain clusters. That framework has been battle-tested and might be more convenient for Ignite-specific workloads. Let's wait for @Maksim Shonichev who promised to join this thread once he finishes preparing the usage examples of the framework. To my knowledge, Max has already been working on that for several days. - Denis On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Igniters. > > I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. > > Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: > > 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite on > «real cluster». > By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: > * client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. > * thin clients perform queries from some other hosts > * etc. > > 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some internal > Ignite process > * PME > * rebalance. > This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) in 2.7.0 faster > or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? > > 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite integration in > a real-world environment: > Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. > I think some ML solutions also should be tested in real-world deployments. > > Solution: > > I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache 2.0 license) > I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on the local > environment(docker) and it works just fine. > > PoC contains following services: > > * Simple rebalance test: > Start 2 server nodes, > Create some data with Ignite client, > Start one more server node, > Wait for rebalance finish > * Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: > Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, > Start 1 Ignite server node > Create some data with Ignite client, > Check data in application that queries it from Spark. > > All tests are fully automated. > Logs collection works just fine. > You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. > > Pros: > > * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to some remote > repository or similar). > * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests on different > JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) > * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as possible. > * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily in clusters in > different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, K8s, Mesos, > Docker, cloud providers, etc.) > * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems > * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open source project - > Apache Kafka. > * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) > * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance results, etc.) > > WDYT? > > [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 > [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape > [3] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html > [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Anton. > Could you please explain how to perform testing on the different environments? Different JDK: 1. We should prepare our environment and put the desired JDK in the known locations. [/opt/jdk1.8, /opt/jdk11], for example. 2. We should parametrize test and just setup java environment variables as usual(see ignite.py [1], for example): export JAVA_HOME, export PATH Different JVM parameters - We need to support it into the desired `service` or perform command from the test itself. A different version of Ignite(or any other `service`) - We can run the same test on the different Ignite versions. All we need, just change the root path for the commands Makes sense? Is it possible to perform this test with TDE enabled? Yes. All you need is parametrize Ignite config and enable some features when required. Is it possible to perform it on custom OS (eg. Windows)? No, This not supported out of the box. I guess we can investigate the features of PowerShell to make it possible. Is it possible to perform in on bare metal? Yes. All you need is an ssh connection. As I said before, you can run the same tests on the dev-environment(local source + docker) with on command and right after development runs it on the bare metal. The only change you need is one config file (cluster.json to be clear) [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15/files#diff-463ad0ed102bd795ac78a50a868b5425R69 > 21 мая 2020 г., в 10:46, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): > > Nikolay, > > Great proposal! > > Could you please explain how to perform testing on the different > environments? > For Example, you provided a rebalance test. > > Is it possible to perform this test with TDE enabled? > Is it possible to perform it on custom OS (eg. Windows)? > Is it possible to perform in on bare metal? > > I hope you'll answer yes to all, and the question mostly about details. > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:27 AM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > >> Hello, Igniters. >> >> I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. >> >> Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: >> >> 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite on >> «real cluster». >> By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: >>* client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. >>* thin clients perform queries from some other hosts >>* etc. >> >> 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some internal >> Ignite process >>* PME >>* rebalance. >> This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) in 2.7.0 faster >> or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? >> >> 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite integration in >> a real-world environment: >> Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. >> I think some ML solutions also should be tested in real-world deployments. >> >> Solution: >> >> I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache 2.0 license) >> I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on the local >> environment(docker) and it works just fine. >> >> PoC contains following services: >> >>* Simple rebalance test: >>Start 2 server nodes, >>Create some data with Ignite client, >>Start one more server node, >>Wait for rebalance finish >>* Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: >>Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, >>Start 1 Ignite server node >>Create some data with Ignite client, >>Check data in application that queries it from Spark. >> >> All tests are fully automated. >> Logs collection works just fine. >> You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. >> >> Pros: >> >> * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to some remote >> repository or similar). >> * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests on different >> JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) >> * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as possible. >> * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily in clusters in >> different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, K8s, Mesos, >> Docker, cloud providers, etc.) >> * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems >> * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open source project - >> Apache Kafka. >> * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) >> * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance results, etc.) >> >> WDYT? >> >> [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 >> [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape >> [3] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html >> [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg
Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Nikolay, Great proposal! Could you please explain how to perform testing on the different environments? For Example, you provided a rebalance test. Is it possible to perform this test with TDE enabled? Is it possible to perform it on custom OS (eg. Windows)? Is it possible to perform in on bare metal? I hope you'll answer yes to all, and the question mostly about details. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:27 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Igniters. > > I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. > > Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: > > 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite on > «real cluster». > By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: > * client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. > * thin clients perform queries from some other hosts > * etc. > > 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some internal > Ignite process > * PME > * rebalance. > This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) in 2.7.0 faster > or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? > > 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite integration in > a real-world environment: > Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. > I think some ML solutions also should be tested in real-world deployments. > > Solution: > > I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache 2.0 license) > I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on the local > environment(docker) and it works just fine. > > PoC contains following services: > > * Simple rebalance test: > Start 2 server nodes, > Create some data with Ignite client, > Start one more server node, > Wait for rebalance finish > * Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: > Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, > Start 1 Ignite server node > Create some data with Ignite client, > Check data in application that queries it from Spark. > > All tests are fully automated. > Logs collection works just fine. > You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. > > Pros: > > * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to some remote > repository or similar). > * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests on different > JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) > * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as possible. > * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily in clusters in > different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, K8s, Mesos, > Docker, cloud providers, etc.) > * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems > * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open source project - > Apache Kafka. > * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) > * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance results, etc.) > > WDYT? > > [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 > [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape > [3] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html > [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg
[DISCUSSION] Ignite integration testing framework.
Hello, Igniters. I created a PoC [1] for the integration tests of Ignite. Let me briefly explain the gap I want to cover: 1. For now, we don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite on «real cluster». By «real cluster» I mean cluster «like a production»: * client and server nodes deployed on different hosts. * thin clients perform queries from some other hosts * etc. 2. We don’t have a solution for automated benchmarks of some internal Ignite process * PME * rebalance. This means we don’t know - Do we perform rebalance(or PME) in 2.7.0 faster or slower than in 2.8.0 for the same cluster? 3. We don’t have a solution for automated testing of Ignite integration in a real-world environment: Ignite-Spark integration can be taken as an example. I think some ML solutions also should be tested in real-world deployments. Solution: I propose to use duck tape library from confluent (apache 2.0 license) I tested it both on the real cluster(Yandex Cloud) and on the local environment(docker) and it works just fine. PoC contains following services: * Simple rebalance test: Start 2 server nodes, Create some data with Ignite client, Start one more server node, Wait for rebalance finish * Simple Ignite-Spark integration test: Start 1 Spark master, start 1 Spark worker, Start 1 Ignite server node Create some data with Ignite client, Check data in application that queries it from Spark. All tests are fully automated. Logs collection works just fine. You can see an example of the tests report - [4]. Pros: * Ability to test local changes(no need to public changes to some remote repository or similar). * Ability to parametrize test environment(run the same tests on different JDK, JVM params, config, etc.) * Isolation by default so system tests are as reliable as possible. * Utilities for pulling up and tearing down services easily in clusters in different environments (e.g. local, custom cluster, Vagrant, K8s, Mesos, Docker, cloud providers, etc.) * Easy to write unit tests for distributed systems * Adopted and successfully used by other distributed open source project - Apache Kafka. * Collect results (e.g. logs, console output) * Report results (e.g. expected conditions met, performance results, etc.) WDYT? [1] https://github.com/nizhikov/ignite/pull/15 [2] https://github.com/confluentinc/ducktape [3] https://ducktape-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_tests.html [4] https://yadi.sk/d/JC8ciJZjrkdndg
