[ 
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-1070?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=343335#comment-343335
 ] 

NAthan McDonald commented on SUREFIRE-1070:
-------------------------------------------

documentation says "Balanced is only relevant with parallel=classes", but we 
aren't using parallel, only forkCount.

Tried this anyway, using balanced does seem to actually run a bit quicker for 
subsequent runs, but this still does not solve our problem.  Our CI server does 
a fresh checkout/build each time, so the statistics file which improves future 
runs doesn't come into effect.

> Forks would complete more uniformly if slow tests aren't run last
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SUREFIRE-1070
>                 URL: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-1070
>             Project: Maven Surefire
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: NAthan McDonald
>            Priority: Minor
>
> Have started using forkCount to use multiple forks when running unit/IT tests.
> We've got a handful of slow tests, but without more than 1 fork, makes no 
> difference in the order they run.
> However once we forked (we use 4 forks, on 8 cores), I noticed one or two 
> forks run longer than the others, completing our slow tests.
> Ideally we want each fork to execute in the same time, but this presents 
> packing problem.
> At simplest term, seems improvements would be achieved if we ensured we ran 
> slow tests first, dividing these up among the initial forks.  I've got this 
> as a workaround, by configuring runOrder to be alphabetical, and 
> renaming/moving slow tests to an aaslow package, and can see performance 
> improvements.  This is not ideal though.
> For a few known slow classes, could have a means to specify them.  Otherwise 
> was thinking would be nice if we annotated slow tests with junit categories, 
> and then could specify forked mode to run certain categories first.  Guess 
> the solution is up for debate, but this does provide significant gains in 
> performance would be nice for a way to tweak the runner without having to 
> move tests to different paths.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.6#6162)

Reply via email to