I have just proposed enabling Travis on a different thread. That should help with this. (Having a separate machine would be best, but I don't know how we could get one. I'll do the homework for this.)
On Oct 13, 2016 5:57 PM, "Lior Zeno" <liorz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe getting an isolated environment? The CI environment might be shared > among multiple users, adding too much noise to the performance test. > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Balazs Donat Bessenyei < > bes...@cloudera.com > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > I think this is a good idea! > > > > How can I help with setting it up? > > > > On Oct 13, 2016 5:20 PM, "Lior Zeno" <liorz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Monitoring Flume's performance over time is an important step in every > > > production-level application. Benchmarking Flume on a nightly basis > has > > > the following advantages: > > > > > > * Better understanding of Flume's bottlenecks. > > > * Allow users to compare the performance of different solutions, such > as > > > Logstash and Fluentd. > > > * Better understanding of the influence of recent commits on > performance. > > > > > > Logstash already conducts various performance tests, more details in > this > > > link: > > > http://logstash-benchmarks.elastic.co/ > > > > > > I propose adding a few micro-benchmarks showing Flume's TPS vs date (of > > > course, in the ideal case where the input and/or output do not > bottleneck > > > the system), e.g. using the SeqGen source. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > >
