Re: Cold standby for oak-benchmarks: option vs fixture

2017-10-05 Thread Andrei Dulceanu
2017-10-03 11:39 GMT+03:00 Chetan Mehrotra :

> *Fixture* looks better *option* here!
> Chetan Mehrotra


Pun intended? :)

Thanks for your feedback, Chetan! I'll go forward with the fixture.


Re: Cold standby for oak-benchmarks: option vs fixture

2017-10-03 Thread Chetan Mehrotra
Fixture looks better option here!
Chetan Mehrotra


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Andrei Dulceanu
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With OAK-6615 [0] we'd like to lay the foundation for including cold
> standby among features which could be included in a benchmark. This means
> that we'd like to have a cold standby that will sync with the primary every
> N seconds while the benchmarks only run on the primary. Initially the plan
> was to have this as an option, --cold-standby [N] for Oak-Segment-Tar*
> fixtures.
>
> Looking more carefully through the code in oak-benchmarks and
> oak-run-commons, I was thinking about implementing this as a new fixture.
> This could work similarly to Oak-Segment-Tar-DS and have dedicated options
> like --no-data-store, --private-data-store or --shared-data-store. It would
> allow us to better setup primary and standby instances (will also cover the
> shared data store use case, left uncovered by --cold-standby option).
>
> What do you think about this? Should we go with an option or a fixture?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrei
>
> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6615


Cold standby for oak-benchmarks: option vs fixture

2017-10-02 Thread Andrei Dulceanu
Hi,

With OAK-6615 [0] we'd like to lay the foundation for including cold
standby among features which could be included in a benchmark. This means
that we'd like to have a cold standby that will sync with the primary every
N seconds while the benchmarks only run on the primary. Initially the plan
was to have this as an option, --cold-standby [N] for Oak-Segment-Tar*
fixtures.

Looking more carefully through the code in oak-benchmarks and
oak-run-commons, I was thinking about implementing this as a new fixture.
This could work similarly to Oak-Segment-Tar-DS and have dedicated options
like --no-data-store, --private-data-store or --shared-data-store. It would
allow us to better setup primary and standby instances (will also cover the
shared data store use case, left uncovered by --cold-standby option).

What do you think about this? Should we go with an option or a fixture?

Thanks,
Andrei

[0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6615