Thanks Mark, I didn't mean to suggest that I would like to compare the results of my test with actual nifi performance, but I would think that I would be able to compare different run iterations with each other.
I did notice that the MockFlowFile is pretty much a wrapper around a byte array, which may or may not be a problem for my small scale testing. On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Mark Payne <[email protected]> wrote: > Vincent, > > I would be vary wary about trusting performance results that you obtain by > using the Mock Framework. > The mock framework is intended to be used only for testing correctness, > not performance. It has very > different threading characteristics than the "actual" NiFi framework, and > it uses very different FlowFile, > Content, and Provenance Repositories. Processor A may perform far better > than Processor B in the > mock framework, but that does not by any means guarantee that it will also > perform better in a live > environment. > > Thanks > -Mark > > On Jan 5, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Vincent Russell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Aldrin, > > Thanks for the response. > > My current use case is that I would like to chain several processors > together and write a performance test against that mini flow and then be > free to modify the processors that are in the chain and see how performance > changes. I think I may be able to chain several TestRunners together to > achieve my goal, although this isn't ideal. > > Ideally I'd be able to provide the TestRunner with multiple Processors and > identify how the processors are chained together. > > Thanks, > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Aldrin Piri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Vincent, >> >> This is something that does not exist and there have been a few threads >> on this topic [1][2]. >> >> Summarily, these tools do not currently exist due to the preference of >> using the interactive and real-time command and control over the flow as >> well as the increasing difficulty of maintaining flows as they grow and >> evolve. >> >> There are some good tips on how other people have tackled the problem in >> the linked message threads. One alternative suggestion is making use of >> NiFi's template functionality [3] to work on stubbing out flows on a >> different instance and use that to promote an entire flow or segment to >> another system. Templates are an area we are planning to both enhance and >> mature as laid out in some of our feature proposals [4][5]. >> >> Please let us know if this is accomplishes the functionality you are >> looking for or if we are coming up a bit short on some of what your needs >> are for integration level testing. Your case is common and certainly one >> we need to execute on well. Any feedback you can provide from your >> perspective both in view of the current state of templates and the path >> forward as laid out in the proposals would be much appreciated! >> >> Thanks! >> >> --aldrin >> >> [1] >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201502.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >> [2] >> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Great-question-on-nifi-IRC-room-today-NiFi-BPM-sharing-configuration-td787.html#a811 >> [3] https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/user-guide.html#templates >> [4] >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Extension%2C+Template%2C+Dataset+Registry >> [5] >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Configuration+Management+of+Flows >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Vincent Russell < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I see that there is a way to test a single processor with the TestRunner >>> (StandardProcessorTestRunner) class, but is there a way to set up an >>> integration test to test a complete flow or a subset of a flow? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Vincent >>> >> >> > >
