|
|
You're in the
dotnet clr
group:Boosting priority of an application for a performance unit test
dotnet clr:
I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test framework to test the performance of various core business object calls e.g. creating invoices / purchase orders e.t.c. and updating them. The tests basically need to assert that the time to say create 1000 documents is less than a configurable amount set by the machine through the app.config file. e.g. 500 ms. Obviously other processes running may effect the timing slightly so I'd like to minimise this as much as possible whilst the tests are executing. Would using the following be appropriate here. 1) Process.PriorityBoostEnabled property 2) Process.PriorityClass 3) Thread.Priority. The intention would be to change the priority in a method which is run before all unit test methods are executed and then revert back to the old behaviour when this is finished. Thoughts?
Boosting your priority will work (I believe through all of those means) but
there will still be things that take priority over you (such as device drivers). I am however curious why you are creating "unit tests" for these items as they are not really unit tests. The fact that you are needing to elevate your process privilege shows the issue with this type of test being a unit test. Performance tests as these should only be run in a controlled environment where the contract would hold true (what happens if I as a developer choose to run on a pentium 200). As an example you mention that it should be able to create 1000 documents in x seconds ... That X seconds is highly dependent upon the environment it is being run on. The other problem with these types of tests is that they tend to take a significant amount of time. Because running a single test is fairly innacurate we often run 1000 or more iterations. By making these items unit tests we unnecesarily add to the code-test cycle time which is what you want to be minimal (increased productivity) The generally accepted way of doing performance tests is to have a machine that specifically runs the tests (and nothing else). Generally this machine is vanilla as possible and has nothing else running on it (in an ideal world). Integration/performance tests are then run periodically run on this machine (often times nightly depending on system size). HTH Greg Young MVP - C# http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung [quoted text, click to view] "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ONjqm23mGHA.3372@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test framework > to test the performance of various core business object calls e.g. > creating invoices / purchase orders e.t.c. and updating them. The tests > basically need to assert that the time to say create 1000 documents is > less than a configurable amount set by the machine through the app.config > file. e.g. 500 ms. > > Obviously other processes running may effect the timing slightly so I'd > like to minimise this as much as possible whilst the tests are executing. > Would using the following be appropriate here. > > 1) Process.PriorityBoostEnabled property > 2) Process.PriorityClass > 3) Thread.Priority. > > The intention would be to change the priority in a method which is run > before all unit test methods are executed and then revert back to the old > behaviour when this is finished. > > Thoughts? > > >
This will kill your developer performance to have developers running these
tests. Let's say your average test takes 3 seconds and you have 100 performance tests ... your unit tests will now take 5 minutes to run this obviously kills your cycle time. The result is that developers will not run the tests. Running tests like these is a fairly controlled environment (i.e. running nightly on your CI server) makes alot more sense. You bring up another point that makes things difficult in that you are also integrating with other processes (whatever SQL Server you happen to be using). Is this server running on the same machine (if not you are likely testing network latency). What about the load of this server during ther testing period (i.e. scheduled jobs). The way I do this is I have a set of performance tests which are run on an integration server (my integration server does almost nothing at night, i.e. scheduled jobs etc so it is a good place to run tests). I have thresholds setup for an allowable delta due to outside variables. If this threshold is crossed it will generate an error report. Cheers, Greg [quoted text, click to view] "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:unYamhdnGHA.4636@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Thanks for your thoughts Greg > > I have created unit tests for the sole purpose of attempting to catch > developers > > a) Making database modifications e.g. creating triggers, indexes, which > would slow the creation of say invoices down by an unacceptable margin > e.g. 20%. I could quite easily imagine a developer creating a complex > trigger and inadvertently not thinking about creation time. > b) Making code modifications to the say invoice business object to add a > complex business rule which slowed creation down by 50%. > > Obviously if an existing client is getting 10000 invoices imported in a 1 > hour time window and they only have 1 hour 20 minutes say, if a patch was > applied was increased this to 1 hours 30 minutes they may have a serious > issue. > > By adding the performance test of creating x documents in y seconds I have > tried to encompass a test which would break the cruise control build if > the performance went to an unacceptable margin. I appreciate each machine > will have a completely different time which is why I made the timings > configurable e.g. the config file of the unit test assembly has entries > > <add key="SP_PERF_PO_1-MaxTimeMs" value="400" /> > <add key="SP_PERF_PO_2-MaxTimeMs" value="600" /> > > This file will be managed in VSS so if any developers have to increase the > time to get it to pass on our build server, we have full history of this. > The unit tests create a large selection of docs e.g. 1000 so should see > any inconsistensies in times. > > I am therefore hoping the various raises of elevating process / thread > priority here would help bring about a bit more consistency to my results > and ensure the unit tests don't fail unexpectedly because of other factors > on the machine. > > Thoughts? > > > "Greg Young" <druckdruckREMOVEgoose@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23WX7sHInGHA.692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Boosting your priority will work (I believe through all of those means) >> but there will still be things that take priority over you (such as >> device drivers). >> >> I am however curious why you are creating "unit tests" for these items as >> they are not really unit tests. The fact that you are needing to elevate >> your process privilege shows the issue with this type of test being a >> unit test. Performance tests as these should only be run in a controlled >> environment where the contract would hold true (what happens if I as a >> developer choose to run on a pentium 200). As an example you mention that >> it should be able to create 1000 documents in x seconds ... That X >> seconds is highly dependent upon the environment it is being run on. >> >> The other problem with these types of tests is that they tend to take a >> significant amount of time. Because running a single test is fairly >> innacurate we often run 1000 or more iterations. By making these items >> unit tests we unnecesarily add to the code-test cycle time which is what >> you want to be minimal (increased productivity) >> >> The generally accepted way of doing performance tests is to have a >> machine that specifically runs the tests (and nothing else). Generally >> this machine is vanilla as possible and has nothing else running on it >> (in an ideal world). Integration/performance tests are then run >> periodically run on this machine (often times nightly depending on system >> size). >> >> HTH >> >> Greg Young >> MVP - C# >> http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung >> >> >> "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ONjqm23mGHA.3372@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >>> I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test >>> framework to test the performance of various core business object calls >>> e.g. creating invoices / purchase orders e.t.c. and updating them. The >>> tests basically need to assert that the time to say create 1000 >>> documents is less than a configurable amount set by the machine through >>> the app.config file. e.g. 500 ms. >>> >>> Obviously other processes running may effect the timing slightly so I'd >>> like to minimise this as much as possible whilst the tests are >>> executing. Would using the following be appropriate here. >>> >>> 1) Process.PriorityBoostEnabled property >>> 2) Process.PriorityClass >>> 3) Thread.Priority. >>> >>> The intention would be to change the priority in a method which is run >>> before all unit test methods are executed and then revert back to the >>> old behaviour when this is finished. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Thanks for your thoughts Greg
I have created unit tests for the sole purpose of attempting to catch developers a) Making database modifications e.g. creating triggers, indexes, which would slow the creation of say invoices down by an unacceptable margin e.g. 20%. I could quite easily imagine a developer creating a complex trigger and inadvertently not thinking about creation time. b) Making code modifications to the say invoice business object to add a complex business rule which slowed creation down by 50%. Obviously if an existing client is getting 10000 invoices imported in a 1 hour time window and they only have 1 hour 20 minutes say, if a patch was applied was increased this to 1 hours 30 minutes they may have a serious issue. By adding the performance test of creating x documents in y seconds I have tried to encompass a test which would break the cruise control build if the performance went to an unacceptable margin. I appreciate each machine will have a completely different time which is why I made the timings configurable e.g. the config file of the unit test assembly has entries <add key="SP_PERF_PO_1-MaxTimeMs" value="400" /> <add key="SP_PERF_PO_2-MaxTimeMs" value="600" /> This file will be managed in VSS so if any developers have to increase the time to get it to pass on our build server, we have full history of this. The unit tests create a large selection of docs e.g. 1000 so should see any inconsistensies in times. I am therefore hoping the various raises of elevating process / thread priority here would help bring about a bit more consistency to my results and ensure the unit tests don't fail unexpectedly because of other factors on the machine. Thoughts? [quoted text, click to view] "Greg Young" <druckdruckREMOVEgoose@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23WX7sHInGHA.692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Boosting your priority will work (I believe through all of those means) > but there will still be things that take priority over you (such as device > drivers). > > I am however curious why you are creating "unit tests" for these items as > they are not really unit tests. The fact that you are needing to elevate > your process privilege shows the issue with this type of test being a unit > test. Performance tests as these should only be run in a controlled > environment where the contract would hold true (what happens if I as a > developer choose to run on a pentium 200). As an example you mention that > it should be able to create 1000 documents in x seconds ... That X seconds > is highly dependent upon the environment it is being run on. > > The other problem with these types of tests is that they tend to take a > significant amount of time. Because running a single test is fairly > innacurate we often run 1000 or more iterations. By making these items > unit tests we unnecesarily add to the code-test cycle time which is what > you want to be minimal (increased productivity) > > The generally accepted way of doing performance tests is to have a machine > that specifically runs the tests (and nothing else). Generally this > machine is vanilla as possible and has nothing else running on it (in an > ideal world). Integration/performance tests are then run periodically run > on this machine (often times nightly depending on system size). > > HTH > > Greg Young > MVP - C# > http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung > > > "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ONjqm23mGHA.3372@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test >> framework to test the performance of various core business object calls >> e.g. creating invoices / purchase orders e.t.c. and updating them. The >> tests basically need to assert that the time to say create 1000 documents >> is less than a configurable amount set by the machine through the >> app.config file. e.g. 500 ms. >> >> Obviously other processes running may effect the timing slightly so I'd >> like to minimise this as much as possible whilst the tests are executing. >> Would using the following be appropriate here. >> >> 1) Process.PriorityBoostEnabled property >> 2) Process.PriorityClass >> 3) Thread.Priority. >> >> The intention would be to change the priority in a method which is run >> before all unit test methods are executed and then revert back to the old >> behaviour when this is finished. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> > >
I am saying you probably shouldn't do this but that I believe all mechanisms
would work (the thread priority probably being the best method as you can spawn the tests on a new thread and only grant that thread higher priority). The problem with boosting your priority is that there are still things at a higher priority so it is only one step towards making things more deterministic. Cheers, Greg [quoted text, click to view] "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OOIh98hnGHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > All unit tests are forced to be run by the CI server ( Cruise Control > .NET ) and taking an extra 5 minutes or so to run additional performance > is not an issue for us. I would rather spend the 5 minutes rather than > risk getting slower performant code released to our clients. > > However currently our unit tests are executed after any code changes are > detected in VSS. In light of what you say though I think it would be > better to schedule these tests to not run on every build but only at a > scheduled time e.g. 1 in the morning. As the server is used by others for > a source control repository, it can be utilised at random times. > > I appreciate your thoughts however you haven't answered my question on the > way to boost the priority of processes using the 3 methods mentioned, or > are you saying you should never do this? > > Cheers > > Matt > > "Greg Young" <druckdruckREMOVEgoose@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:OfJs66fnGHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> This will kill your developer performance to have developers running >> these tests. Let's say your average test takes 3 seconds and you have 100 >> performance tests ... your unit tests will now take 5 minutes to run this >> obviously kills your cycle time. The result is that developers will not >> run the tests. >> >> Running tests like these is a fairly controlled environment (i.e. running >> nightly on your CI server) makes alot more sense. >> >> You bring up another point that makes things difficult in that you are >> also integrating with other processes (whatever SQL Server you happen to >> be using). Is this server running on the same machine (if not you are >> likely testing network latency). What about the load of this server >> during ther testing period (i.e. scheduled jobs). >> >> The way I do this is I have a set of performance tests which are run on >> an integration server (my integration server does almost nothing at >> night, i.e. scheduled jobs etc so it is a good place to run tests). I >> have thresholds setup for an allowable delta due to outside variables. If >> this threshold is crossed it will generate an error report. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Greg >> >> "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:unYamhdnGHA.4636@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Thanks for your thoughts Greg >>> >>> I have created unit tests for the sole purpose of attempting to catch >>> developers >>> >>> a) Making database modifications e.g. creating triggers, indexes, which >>> would slow the creation of say invoices down by an unacceptable margin >>> e.g. 20%. I could quite easily imagine a developer creating a complex >>> trigger and inadvertently not thinking about creation time. >>> b) Making code modifications to the say invoice business object to add a >>> complex business rule which slowed creation down by 50%. >>> >>> Obviously if an existing client is getting 10000 invoices imported in a >>> 1 hour time window and they only have 1 hour 20 minutes say, if a patch >>> was applied was increased this to 1 hours 30 minutes they may have a >>> serious issue. >>> >>> By adding the performance test of creating x documents in y seconds I >>> have tried to encompass a test which would break the cruise control >>> build if the performance went to an unacceptable margin. I appreciate >>> each machine will have a completely different time which is why I made >>> the timings configurable e.g. the config file of the unit test assembly >>> has entries >>> >>> <add key="SP_PERF_PO_1-MaxTimeMs" value="400" /> >>> <add key="SP_PERF_PO_2-MaxTimeMs" value="600" /> >>> >>> This file will be managed in VSS so if any developers have to increase >>> the time to get it to pass on our build server, we have full history of >>> this. The unit tests create a large selection of docs e.g. 1000 so >>> should see any inconsistensies in times. >>> >>> I am therefore hoping the various raises of elevating process / thread >>> priority here would help bring about a bit more consistency to my >>> results and ensure the unit tests don't fail unexpectedly because of >>> other factors on the machine. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> "Greg Young" <druckdruckREMOVEgoose@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:%23WX7sHInGHA.692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Boosting your priority will work (I believe through all of those means) >>>> but there will still be things that take priority over you (such as >>>> device drivers). >>>> >>>> I am however curious why you are creating "unit tests" for these items >>>> as they are not really unit tests. The fact that you are needing to >>>> elevate your process privilege shows the issue with this type of test >>>> being a unit test. Performance tests as these should only be run in a >>>> controlled environment where the contract would hold true (what happens >>>> if I as a developer choose to run on a pentium 200). As an example you >>>> mention that it should be able to create 1000 documents in x seconds >>>> ... That X seconds is highly dependent upon the environment it is being >>>> run on. >>>> >>>> The other problem with these types of tests is that they tend to take a >>>> significant amount of time. Because running a single test is fairly >>>> innacurate we often run 1000 or more iterations. By making these items >>>> unit tests we unnecesarily add to the code-test cycle time which is >>>> what you want to be minimal (increased productivity) >>>> >>>> The generally accepted way of doing performance tests is to have a >>>> machine that specifically runs the tests (and nothing else). Generally >>>> this machine is vanilla as possible and has nothing else running on it >>>> (in an ideal world). Integration/performance tests are then run >>>> periodically run on this machine (often times nightly depending on >>>> system size). >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> >>>> Greg Young >>>> MVP - C# >>>> http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung >>>> >>>> >>>> "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ONjqm23mGHA.3372@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> >>>>> I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test >>>>> framework to test the performance of various core business object >>>>> calls e.g. creating invoices / purchase orders e.t.c. and updating
All unit tests are forced to be run by the CI server ( Cruise Control .NET )
and taking an extra 5 minutes or so to run additional performance is not an issue for us. I would rather spend the 5 minutes rather than risk getting slower performant code released to our clients. However currently our unit tests are executed after any code changes are detected in VSS. In light of what you say though I think it would be better to schedule these tests to not run on every build but only at a scheduled time e.g. 1 in the morning. As the server is used by others for a source control repository, it can be utilised at random times. I appreciate your thoughts however you haven't answered my question on the way to boost the priority of processes using the 3 methods mentioned, or are you saying you should never do this? Cheers Matt [quoted text, click to view] "Greg Young" <druckdruckREMOVEgoose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OfJs66fnGHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > This will kill your developer performance to have developers running these > tests. Let's say your average test takes 3 seconds and you have 100 > performance tests ... your unit tests will now take 5 minutes to run this > obviously kills your cycle time. The result is that developers will not > run the tests. > > Running tests like these is a fairly controlled environment (i.e. running > nightly on your CI server) makes alot more sense. > > You bring up another point that makes things difficult in that you are > also integrating with other processes (whatever SQL Server you happen to > be using). Is this server running on the same machine (if not you are > likely testing network latency). What about the load of this server during > ther testing period (i.e. scheduled jobs). > > The way I do this is I have a set of performance tests which are run on an > integration server (my integration server does almost nothing at night, > i.e. scheduled jobs etc so it is a good place to run tests). I have > thresholds setup for an allowable delta due to outside variables. If this > threshold is crossed it will generate an error report. > > Cheers, > > Greg > > "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:unYamhdnGHA.4636@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Thanks for your thoughts Greg >> >> I have created unit tests for the sole purpose of attempting to catch >> developers >> >> a) Making database modifications e.g. creating triggers, indexes, which >> would slow the creation of say invoices down by an unacceptable margin >> e.g. 20%. I could quite easily imagine a developer creating a complex >> trigger and inadvertently not thinking about creation time. >> b) Making code modifications to the say invoice business object to add a >> complex business rule which slowed creation down by 50%. >> >> Obviously if an existing client is getting 10000 invoices imported in a 1 >> hour time window and they only have 1 hour 20 minutes say, if a patch was >> applied was increased this to 1 hours 30 minutes they may have a serious >> issue. >> >> By adding the performance test of creating x documents in y seconds I >> have tried to encompass a test which would break the cruise control build >> if the performance went to an unacceptable margin. I appreciate each >> machine will have a completely different time which is why I made the >> timings configurable e.g. the config file of the unit test assembly has >> entries >> >> <add key="SP_PERF_PO_1-MaxTimeMs" value="400" /> >> <add key="SP_PERF_PO_2-MaxTimeMs" value="600" /> >> >> This file will be managed in VSS so if any developers have to increase >> the time to get it to pass on our build server, we have full history of >> this. The unit tests create a large selection of docs e.g. 1000 so should >> see any inconsistensies in times. >> >> I am therefore hoping the various raises of elevating process / thread >> priority here would help bring about a bit more consistency to my results >> and ensure the unit tests don't fail unexpectedly because of other >> factors on the machine. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> "Greg Young" <druckdruckREMOVEgoose@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:%23WX7sHInGHA.692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Boosting your priority will work (I believe through all of those means) >>> but there will still be things that take priority over you (such as >>> device drivers). >>> >>> I am however curious why you are creating "unit tests" for these items >>> as they are not really unit tests. The fact that you are needing to >>> elevate your process privilege shows the issue with this type of test >>> being a unit test. Performance tests as these should only be run in a >>> controlled environment where the contract would hold true (what happens >>> if I as a developer choose to run on a pentium 200). As an example you >>> mention that it should be able to create 1000 documents in x seconds ... >>> That X seconds is highly dependent upon the environment it is being run >>> on. >>> >>> The other problem with these types of tests is that they tend to take a >>> significant amount of time. Because running a single test is fairly >>> innacurate we often run 1000 or more iterations. By making these items >>> unit tests we unnecesarily add to the code-test cycle time which is what >>> you want to be minimal (increased productivity) >>> >>> The generally accepted way of doing performance tests is to have a >>> machine that specifically runs the tests (and nothing else). Generally >>> this machine is vanilla as possible and has nothing else running on it >>> (in an ideal world). Integration/performance tests are then run >>> periodically run on this machine (often times nightly depending on >>> system size). >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Greg Young >>> MVP - C# >>> http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung >>> >>> >>> "Matt Adamson" <Adamson_Matthew@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ONjqm23mGHA.3372@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>> I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test >>>> framework to test the performance of various core business object calls >>>> e.g. creating invoices / purchase orders e.t.c. and updating them. The >>>> tests basically need to assert that the time to say create 1000 >>>> documents is less than a configurable amount set by the machine through >>>> the app.config file. e.g. 500 ms. >>>> >>>> Obviously other processes running may effect the timing slightly so I'd >>>> like to minimise this as much as possible whilst the tests are >>>> executing. Would using the following be appropriate here. >>>> >>>> 1) Process.PriorityBoostEnabled property >>>> 2) Process.PriorityClass >>>> 3) Thread.Priority. >>>> >>>> The intention would be to change the priority in a method which is run >>>> before all unit test methods are executed and then revert back to the
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |