Benchmark directory structure

[Monty Williams]

Should we add a third top level category? micro-benchmarks and macro-benchmarks both seem mostly self-contained, but it seems like there should be another category for benchmarks that require additional infrastructure such as MySQL. It's kind of a nit, but my `rake bench:dir DIR=rbs/macro-benchmarks` now requires me to setup MySQL in my QA lab or to add patterns to exclude benchmarks that require it.

-- Monty

[Roger Pack]

One possibility would be moving the rails directory to be a sibling to
micro and macro.
Another might be running it like PATTERN=macro-benchmarks/* and it
would avoid [?] rails?
-=r

[Monty Williams]

A sibling seems the right thing to me. It makes it more visible to anyone starting to look at RBS. I think Rails is certainly important enough to deserve a category of it's own rather than being a subdirectory of macro-benchmarks..

[Roger Pack]

> A sibling seems the right thing to me. It makes it more visible to anyone starting to look at RBS. I think Rails is certainly important enough to deserve a category of it's own rather than being a subdirectory of macro-benchmarks..

I agree--it's more of a "system" benchmark than anything.

[Antonio Cangiano]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Monty Williams <monty.w...@gemstone.com> wrote:

A sibling seems the right thing to me. It makes it more visible to anyone starting to look at RBS. I think Rails is certainly important enough to deserve a category of it's own rather than being a subdirectory of macro-benchmarks.

+1

Cheers,
Antonio
--
Coming soon... http://ThinkCode.TV
Zen and the Art of Programming: http://AntonioCangiano.com
Aperiodico di resistenza informatica: http://StackTrace.it
Author of "Ruby on Rails for Microsoft Developers": http://bit.ly/rorforms