metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Build Times are getting out of hand
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:07:26 GMT
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 (cestella@gmail.com) 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 (
https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-metron/jobs/198929446), 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

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