 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / CLR / July 2006Boosting priority of an application for a performance unit test
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 > I've created some simple performance tests within the NUnit test framework > to test the performance of various core business object calls e.g. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> >> 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 > Thanks for your thoughts Greg > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >>> >>> Thoughts? 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] >>>> >>>> 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.