ok to add optional timeout/sleep property for junit framework?

[Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>]

Hi,

The junit networkserver tests run with a setting that's specified in -
at least - NetworkServerTestSetup.
I find that this may not be applicable for all machines; I ran on some
slower machines and the setting wasn't enough.

I remember that one of the detractors for the old test harness was
that it had so many properties one could set, but I'm wondering if it
would be ok to add an optional system property for this.
Currently, I have a choice to either cook up derbyTesting.jar, or make
the changes for my slow machine applicable to everyone, and I'd rather
have an optional overwrite.

Thoughts?

Thx,
Myrna

Re: ok to add optional timeout/sleep property for junit framework?

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>]

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>> Could this really be a bug, if the server doesn't start in over five
>>> minutes, even on a slow machine?
>>>
>>> Dan.
>>>
>>>
>> I guess it could be...But, wouldn't it just never come up, then?
> 
> No idea, that's the definition of a bug, unexpected/unexplained 
> behaviour. :-)
> 
> DERBY-2616 indicates the problem in a slow starting server might be due 
> to the tcp/ip state TIMED_WAIT. However the fix there was just to 
> increase the default wait time (which actually makes the tests run 
> slower). If TIMED_WAIT is the problem then tcp/ip and the Java Socket 
> api provides ways to get around it. Using the Socket.setReuseAddress() 
> call and SocketSessionConfig.setReuseAddress().
> 
> Maybe the real fix to this issue is to use setReuseAddress() in some 
> way, maybe one or a combination of:
> 
>   - provide a property to configure setReuseAddress for the server
>   - set that property in the decorator that starts the network server
>   - always set setReuseAddress(true) for localhost (unlikely to lose 
> network packets talking to localhost)
>   - always set setReuseAddress(true) (possibly a bad idea since 
> TIMED_WAIT is there for a reason but I haven't looked in enough detail)

More options:
     - Set setReuseAddress(true) on the server socket
     - Add a server property for setReuseAddress() on the server socker

Dan.

Re: ok to add optional timeout/sleep property for junit framework?

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>]

Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>> Could this really be a bug, if the server doesn't start in over five
>> minutes, even on a slow machine?
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
> I guess it could be...But, wouldn't it just never come up, then?

No idea, that's the definition of a bug, unexpected/unexplained 
behaviour. :-)

DERBY-2616 indicates the problem in a slow starting server might be due 
to the tcp/ip state TIMED_WAIT. However the fix there was just to 
increase the default wait time (which actually makes the tests run 
slower). If TIMED_WAIT is the problem then tcp/ip and the Java Socket 
api provides ways to get around it. Using the Socket.setReuseAddress() 
call and SocketSessionConfig.setReuseAddress().

Maybe the real fix to this issue is to use setReuseAddress() in some 
way, maybe one or a combination of:

   - provide a property to configure setReuseAddress for the server
   - set that property in the decorator that starts the network server
   - always set setReuseAddress(true) for localhost (unlikely to lose 
network packets talking to localhost)
   - always set setReuseAddress(true) (possibly a bad idea since 
TIMED_WAIT is there for a reason but I haven't looked in enough detail)
E.g. http://osflash.org/pipermail/red5devs_osflash.org/2007-May/002857.html

DERBY-1966 indicates there does seem to be a bug if some network server 
resources are held onto after the server is shutdown.

> The problem I see isn't with just starting network server, but more
> with running the tests...
> And I could get the test to pass when I increased both sleep and wait time...
> Actually, it seemed to me on the one machine I'm currently thinking
> of, it was more the shutting down that took a very long time...It
> appears to me on this machine deleting of files takes especially long,
> could that be related?

Do the tests have some time based wait for the shutdown? I thought it 
was only for the server start, can you specify which values you want to 
make into properties.

Dan.

Re: ok to add optional timeout/sleep property for junit framework?

[Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>]

> Could this really be a bug, if the server doesn't start in over five
> minutes, even on a slow machine?
>
> Dan.
>
>
I guess it could be...But, wouldn't it just never come up, then?
The problem I see isn't with just starting network server, but more
with running the tests...
And I could get the test to pass when I increased both sleep and wait time...
Actually, it seemed to me on the one machine I'm currently thinking
of, it was more the shutting down that took a very long time...It
appears to me on this machine deleting of files takes especially long,
could that be related?

Myrna

Re: ok to add optional timeout/sleep property for junit framework?

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>]

Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The junit networkserver tests run with a setting that's specified in -
> at least - NetworkServerTestSetup.
> I find that this may not be applicable for all machines; I ran on some
> slower machines and the setting wasn't enough.
> 
> I remember that one of the detractors for the old test harness was
> that it had so many properties one could set, but I'm wondering if it
> would be ok to add an optional system property for this.
> Currently, I have a choice to either cook up derbyTesting.jar, or make
> the changes for my slow machine applicable to everyone, and I'd rather
> have an optional overwrite.
> 
> Thoughts?

Could this really be a bug, if the server doesn't start in over five 
minutes, even on a slow machine?

Dan.