-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 490
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Recipe for network testing #1322
Recipe for network testing #1322
Conversation
…cript to distribute nodes to groups based on group percent.
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ | |||
PARAMS=-w 100 -R 8 -N 20 -n 100 -H 10 --node-template node.json --relay-template relay.json --non-participating-node-template nonPartNode.json |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we really need such a big network to conduct a partitioning test ?
I don't really see how the large network would help us getting the answer "does the network recover after partitioning? and after how long ?"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can adjust the network to be smaller. The github tickets ask for all 3 scenarios.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's true. It's that I just don't want you to get delayed by "deployment issues" that aren't related to the actual test you're trying to conduct.. Having the feedback that it's broken on small network is more valuable than the fact the it's broken on a large network ( and would probably be easier to evaluate )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, we will start testing tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
few requests, looks good otherwise.
netdeploy/remote/deployedNetwork.go
Outdated
|
||
group := strings.TrimSpace(cloudHost.Group) | ||
if group == "" { | ||
hostSpec.Group = "default" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For backward compatibility, you might want to leave the default as an empty string.
This would force the cloudspec file consumer to populate it with "default" instead of expecting a non-empty string.
( i.e. currently, all cloud-spec files doesn't have this field. )
If you're going to break backward compatibility, please add versioning to the cloud spec file so we can detect that forward.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Leave default as an empty string.
# for i in range(10): | ||
# partition_name = get_partition(ranges) | ||
# print(i, partition_name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: delete deadcode
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed.
"EnableMetrics": false, | ||
"MetricsURI": "{{MetricsURI}}", | ||
"ConfigJSONOverride": "{ \"TxPoolExponentialIncreaseFactor\": 1, \"DNSBootstrapID\": \"<network>.algodev.network\", \"DeadlockDetection\": -1, \"PeerPingPeriodSeconds\": 30, \"BaseLoggerDebugLevel\": 4, \"EnableProfiler\": true }", | ||
"AltConfigs": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: spacing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed extra white space.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can't give explicit approval here because I don't know this tool well enough...would take time to get familiar.
Added a new recipe for performing network disruption tests.
Summary
Added a new recipe for performing network disruption tests.
Test Plan
Testing using Algonet.