[SERVER-28922] Improve memory.js Created: 21/Apr/17 Updated: 07/May/19 Resolved: 07/May/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Mark Benvenuto | Assignee: | Gabriel Russell (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Dev Tools 2019-05-06, Dev Tools 2019-05-20, Dev Tools 2019-04-22 | ||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||
| Linked BF Score: | 12 | ||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Memory.js is tries to consume large amounts of memory and ensure the server can handle lots of memory usage robustly. It tests several descrete types of memory usage, but it relies on the JS GC kicking in order to succeed. Since the JS GC is non-deterministic, explicit calls to gc() should me made to make the test more deterministic. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Gabriel Russell (Inactive) [ 07/May/19 ] |
|
Being that that memory.js got blacklisted on PPC, the irregular failures there are gone. Unless some other reason for making memory.js more reliable shows up then I don't think that this is worth doing. |
| Comment by Mira Carey [ 07/May/18 ] |
|
While peppering memory.js with gc() calls would help, I think we also want to run memory.js as part of nopassthrough with a smaller heap. That way we could have a test that runs faster, is more predictable and doesn't need to run serially (because it has reduced memory requirements). Thus the link to SERVER-34849 |