[tahoe-dev] What's wrong with my test using check_load.py

[Daira Hopwood]

On 17/07/13 21:44, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> I haven't heard of anyone using check_load.py ¹ in a long time, and
> there are no automated tests of it, so it has probably bit-rotted.
> 
> ¹ https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/src/allmydata/test/check_load.py?annotate=blame&rev=fff237be9a0c4dc5b6c6cdfb596fedc877d748ae
> 
> I'm going to suggest that we delete check_load.py or else write unit
> tests for it in order to fix it and prevent it from bit-rotting again.
> 
> However, Daira Hopwood recently created a similar test for our use in
> https://LeastAuthority.com's commercial service. Daira: would you be
> interested in comparing your monitoring script with check_load.py, and
> possibly merge them or replace check_load.py with your script?

LeastAuthority's monitoring operates under the constraint of avoiding
consuming extra space in the user's account on each run. It should also
be as simple as possible, as long as it tests things that make sure a
LeastAuthority customer's account is working. That part is already
finished, so I don't want to merge any code from check_load.py into it
at this point. Also, it's not a load-testing script (neither is check_load,
although people may expect it to be from the name).

In any case, I have limited time before the LeastAuthority product launch
so I don't really have time to look at check_load in detail as well.

-- 
Daira Hopwood ⚥

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20130718/2c4fa54a/attachment.pgp>