Re: [infinispan-dev] running test suite with JBossTM vs DummyTM
On 25 Jan 2011, at 17:12, Manik Surtani wrote:
How's this for a solution:
1) Test suite remains the same
I don't think performance is affected by using
JBossTM for test runs, I'll need to check by running it
2) Running tests locally remains the same (using the DummyTM)
Is there any advantage in doing that besides being able to run tests more quickly?
:-)
3) Our Hudson environment runs the testsuite with the
-Dinfinispan.tm=jbosstm parameter.
This way, at least our CI builds will use a *real* TM. If we find failures on Hudson
that we want to debug locally, we add -Dinfinispan.tm=jbosstm parameter. to any local
run we want to trace.
Thoughts?
My concern is that we'll have to enhance DummyTM to be
"more" compliant with the jta spec. As long as that's not going to happen
I'm fine with using it for local test. IMO no point spending effort enhancing
DummyTM.
Cheers
Manik
On 24 Jan 2011, at 16:50, Mircea Markus wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2011, at 16:34, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> Seems a good idea, but it's also nice if we can keep the testsuite
>> quick to run;
> The performance difference would result from TM doing write on the disk during 2PC
prepare( I think it's after the prepare phase). This only happens if we run
distributed transactions tough (i.e. more than one participant), otherwise the TM would
optimise the call for a single resource and no disk access takes place.
> Even more, AFAIK this can be disabled not to do disk access ( keep tx log in memory).
> So I estimate the performance should be about the same.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev