metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Merriman <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Build Times are getting out of hand
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:36:38 GMT
Debugging integration tests in an IDE uses the same approach with our
current infrastructure or with docker:  start up the topology with
LocalRunner.  I've had mixed success with our current infrastructure.  As
Mike alluded to, some tests work fine (most of the parser topologies and
enrichment topology) while others fail when run in my IDE but work on the
command line (ES integration test due to guava issues and Squid topology
due to some issue with the remove subdomains Stellar function).  Of course
with Docker infrastructure you will need a test runner to launch topologies
in LocalRunner.  They are short and simple though and I have one written
for each topology that I can share when appropriate.

There are some advantages and disadvantages to switching the integration
tests to use Docker.  The infrastructure we have now works and could be
adjusted to overcome it's primary weaknesses (single classloader and start
up/shutdown after each test).  With Docker the classloader issue goes away
for the most part (or is much better than it is now) without any extra
work.  For spinning services up/down once instead of with each test, we
will need to adjust our tests to clean up after themselves or (even better)
namespace all testing objects so that tests don't step on each other.  That
work would have to be done no matter which infrastructure approach we
take.  Probably the biggest downside to using Docker is that all
integration tests will need to be adjusted and we'll likely hit some issues
that we'll need to resolve.  I was bitten several times by services that
broadcast their host address (Kafka for example) and I bet we hit more of
those.  We'll also need to add a few more containers (HDFS for sure) but
those are easy to create as long as you don't hit the issue I just

I think all of the suggestions so far are good ideas.  I think it goes
without saying that we should do one at a time and maybe even reassess
after we see the impact of each change.  I would vote for doing the
Maven/shading one first because it is all around beneficial, even outside
of this context.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Casey Stella <> wrote:

> I believe that some people use travis and some people request Jenkins from
> Apache Infra.  That being said, personally, I think we should take the
> opportunity to correct the underlying issues.  50 minutes for a build seems
> excessive to me.
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Otto Fowler <>
> wrote:
> > Is there an alternative to Travis?  Do other like sized apache projects
> > have these problems?  Do they use travis?
> >
> >
> > On February 6, 2017 at 17:02:37, Casey Stella (
> wrote:
> >
> > For those with pending/building pull requests, it will come as no
> surprise
> > that our build times are increasing at a pace that is worrisome. In fact,
> > we have hit a fundamental limit associated with Travis over the weekend.
> > We have creeped up into the 40+ minute build territory and travis seems
> to
> > error out at around 49 minutes.
> >
> > Taking the current build (
> >, looking
> at
> > just job times, we're spending about 19 - 20 minutes (1176.53 seconds) in
> > tests out of 44 minutes and 42 seconds to do the build. This places the
> > unit tests at around 43% of the build time. I say all of this to point
> out
> > that while unit tests are a portion of the build, they are not even the
> > majority of the build time. We need an approach that addresses the whole
> > build performance holistically and we need it soonest.
> >
> > To seed the discussion, I will point to a few things that come to mind
> > that
> > fit into three broad categories:
> >
> > *Tests are Slow*
> >
> >
> > - *Tactical*: We have around 13 tests that take more than 30 seconds and
> > make up 14 minutes of the build. Considering what we can do to speed
> those
> > tests as a tactical approach may be worth considering
> > - We are spinning up the same services (e.g. kafka, storm) for multiple
> > tests, instead use the docker infrastructure to spin them up once and
> then
> > use them throughout the tests.
> >
> >
> > *Tests aren't parallel*
> >
> > Currently we cannot run the build in parallel due to the integration test
> > infrastructure spinning up its own services that bind to the same ports.
> > If we correct this, we can run the builds in parallel with mvn -T
> >
> > - Correct this by decoupling the infrastructure from the tests and
> > refactoring the tests to run in parallel.
> > - Make the integration testing infrastructure bind intelligently to
> > whatever port is available.
> > - Move the integration tests to their own project. This will let us run
> > the build in parallel since an individual project's test will be run
> > serially.
> >
> > *Packaging is Painful*
> >
> > We have a sensitive environment in terms of dependencies. As such, we are
> > careful to shade and relocate dependencies that we want to isolate from
> > our
> > transitive dependencies. The consequences of this is that we spend a lot
> > of time in the build shading and relocating maven module output.
> >
> > - Do the hard work to walk our transitive dependencies and ensure that
> > we are including only one copy of every library by using exclusions
> > effectively. This will not only bring down build times, it will make sure
> > we know what we're including.
> > - Try to devise a strategy where we only shade once at the end. This
> > could look like some combination of
> > - standardizing on the lowest common denominator of a troublesome
> > library
> > - We shade in dependencies so they can use different versions of
> > libraries (e.g. metron-common with a modern version of guava) than the
> > final jars.
> > - exclusions
> > - externalizing infrastructure out to not necessitate spinning up
> > hadoop components in-process for integration tests (i.e. hbase server
> > conflicts with storm in a few dependencies)
> >
> > *Final Thoughts*
> >
> > If I had three to pick, I'd pick
> >
> > - moving off of the in-memory component infrastructure to docker images
> > - fixing the maven poms to exclude correctly
> > - ensuring the resulting tests are parallelizable
> >
> > I will point out that fixing the maven poms to exclude correctly (i.e. we
> > choose the version of every jar that we depend on transitively) ticks
> > multiple boxes, not just making things faster.
> >
> > What are your thoughts? What did I miss? We need a plan and we need to
> > execute on it soon, otherwise travis is going to keep smacking us hard.
> It
> > may be worth while constructing a tactical plan and then a more strategic
> > plan that we can work toward. I was heartened at how much some of these
> > suggestions dovetail with the discussion around the future of the docker
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Casey
> >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message