Just as a note, when you're developing stuff, you can use "test-only" in sbt, or the equivalent feature in Maven, to run just some of the tests. This is what I do, I don't wait for Jenkins to run things. 90% of the time if it passes the tests that I know could break stuff, it will pass all of Jenkins.
Jenkins should always be doing all the integration tests, so I don't think it will become *that* much shorter in the long run, though it can certainly be improved. Matei On August 8, 2014 at 10:20:35 AM, Nicolas Liochon (nkey...@gmail.com) wrote: fwiw, when we did this work in HBase, we categorized the tests. Then some tests can share a single jvm, while some others need to be isolated in their own jvm. Nevertheless surefire can still run them in parallel by starting/stopping several jvm. Nicolas On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > ScalaTest actually has support for parallelization built-in. We can use > that. > > The main challenge is to make sure all the test suites can work in parallel > when running along side each other. > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How about using parallel execution feature of maven-surefire-plugin > > (assuming all the tests were made parallel friendly) ? > > > > > > > http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-surefire-plugin/examples/fork-options-and-parallel-execution.html > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > A common approach is to separate unit tests from integration tests. > > > Maven has support for this distinction. I'm not sure it helps a lot > > > though, since it only helps you to not run integration tests all the > > > time. But lots of Spark tests are integration-test-like and are > > > important to run to know a change works. > > > > > > I haven't heard of a plugin to run different test suites remotely on > > > many machines, but I would not be surprised if it exists. > > > > > > The Jenkins servers aren't CPU-bound as far as I can tell. It's that > > > the tests spend a lot of time waiting for bits to start up or > > > complete. That implies the existing tests could be sped up by just > > > running in parallel locally. I recall someone recently proposed this? > > > > > > And I think the problem with that is simply that some of the tests > > > collide with each other, by opening up the same port at the same time > > > for example. I know that kind of problem is being attacked even right > > > now. But if all the tests were made parallel friendly, I imagine > > > parallelism could be enabled and speed up builds greatly without any > > > remote machines. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Nicholas Chammas > > > <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > > > Do we think it's both feasible and worthwhile to invest in getting > our > > > unit > > > > tests to finish in under 5 minutes (or something similarly brief) > when > > > run > > > > by Jenkins? > > > > > > > > Unit tests currently seem to take anywhere from 30 min to 2 hours. As > > > > people add more tests, I imagine this time will only grow. I think it > > > would > > > > be better for both contributors and reviewers if they didn't have to > > wait > > > > so long for test results; PR reviews would be shorter, if nothing > else. > > > > > > > > I don't know how how this is normally done, but maybe it wouldn't be > > too > > > > much work to get a test cycle to feel lighter. > > > > > > > > Most unit tests are independent and can be run concurrently, right? > > Would > > > > it make sense to build a given patch on many servers at once and send > > > > disjoint sets of unit tests to each? > > > > > > > > I'd be interested in working on something like that if possible (and > > > > sensible). > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
