----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/#review127698 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (line 2988) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/#comment191088> 2 spaces here src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 3000 - 3017) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/#comment191090> size_t above but unsigned here? Also, why the vectors here? ``` for (size_t i = 0; i < frameworkCount; i++) { string role = stringify(i); allocator->setQuota(role, createQuota(role, "cpus:1;mem:512;disk:256")); } for (size_t i = 0; i < frameworkCount; i++) { FrameworkInfo framework = createFrameworkInfo(stringify(i))); allocator->addFramework(framework.id(), framework, {}); } for (size_t i = 0; i < slaveCount; i++) { SlaveInfo slave = createSlaveInfo("cpus:16;mem:2048;disk:1024"); allocator->addSlave(slaveid(), slave, None(), slave.resources(), {}); } ``` src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 3022 - 3032) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/#comment191092> Why the scope here? Looks like it was added because some of the new benchmarks in this file are using a scope for the stopwatch? I don't think it's bad, but it's a little tricky to follow the reasoning for where to use a scope here. I suppose it calls out the timing code, but I'd opt to just avoid the extra scoping for now. src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 3023 - 3027) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/#comment191093> Perhaps this would be clearer? ``` Stopwatch watch; // TODO(bmahler): Avoid timing the JSON parsing here. // Ideally we also avoid timing the HTTP layer. watch.start(); JSON::Object metrics = Metrics(); watch.stop(); ``` src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (lines 3029 - 3031) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/#comment191091> How about: ``` cout << "/metrics/snapshot took " << watch.elapsed() << " for " << slaveCount << " slaves" << " and " << frameworkCount << " frameworks" << endl; ``` - Ben Mahler On March 30, 2016, 1:22 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 30, 2016, 1:22 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov and Ben Mahler. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added benchmark test for the allocator metrics endpoint. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 459e02576f6d05abbbcc83ae5cabac5c66e93f05 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44853/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > The benchmark uses the same parametrized setup as other > `HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Tests` which already elsewhere take > considerable time. The reason for covering the same parameter space here was > the assumption that that parameter space does capture the relevant scenarios. > > The benchmark shows that the time needed to obtain the metrics has a linear > relationship with the number of registered frameworks, roughly independent of > the number of slaves. With my setup, the time per framework was well below 1 > ms after already a few frameworks. > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Bannier > >
