spdk VS Task

https://spdk.io will require you to load linux onto the server (livecd off a usb should be fine), but is essentially the most efficient way possible to do IO. Intel’s storage division used to use it to get the numbers they advertised with. When they loaded up a system with kioxia drives, Intel managed to hit 120 million IOPS in some of their testing.

Since the project I work on (https://spdk.io) largely produces a set of executables as output, it was most natural to write the tests in bash. There's one top level bash script that kicks off the full suite of tests and thousands and thousands of lines of tests all written as bash scripts stringing together calls to these executables.

One of these tests is to run shellcheck against all of the scripts in the repo. We don't allow any modifications to scripts without shellcheck giving them the green light now. The quality of our tests has increased dramatically since this was instituted - it's a really great tool.

FYI SPDK doesn't strictly require the IOMMU be enabled. See https://spdk.io/doc/system_configuration.html There's also a new experimental interrupt mode (not for everything) finding some valuable use cases in SPDK, see https://github.com/spdk/spdk/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md and feel free to jump on the SPDK slack channel or email list for more info on either of these https://spdk.io/community/

So many tools in this space! This one looks a little bit like go-task, but it seems maybe better for production workflows because if timeout support, while go-task seems more aimed to command line work/makefile replacement.

—-

https://github.com/go-task/task

View on GitHub

A similar tool is `task` https://taskfile.dev/ . It is quite capable and also a single executable. I've grown to quite like it.

check out tasks - a bit of a learning curve but arguably more powerful imo

That's when I came across taskfile.dev. Task is an automation tool designed to be more accessible than other options, such as GNU Make.

Full disclosure, I did not review Conda or Hatch fully. Not that there is anything explicitly wrong with either of them. Conda is too specific to the scientific community for my general taste. Hatch seems to go well with Conda and also uses the PyProject manifest as well. It's nice that it gives you several built in tools, similar to commit hooks, but I tend to like to roll my own via a Taskfile and run them with Poetry.

Taskfile is a tool for streamlining repetitive development tasks. It helps automate activities like building, testing, and deploying applications. Unlike Makefile, Taskfile uses YAML for configuration, making it more readable and user-friendly.

9. We test everything with another promotion which runs make targets which build docker containers to run python scripts (pytest)

This is also built by a complicated web of wildcarded makefile targets, which need to be interoperable and support a few if/else cases for specific components.

My plan is to migrate all of this to something simpler and more straightforward, or at least more maintainable, which is honestly probably going to turn into taskfile[0] instead of makefiles, and then simple python scripts for the glue that ties everything together or does more complex logic.

My hope is that it can be more straightforward and easier to maintain, with more component-ized logic, but realistically every step in that labyrinthine build process (and that's just the open-source version!) came from a decision made by a very talented team of engineers who know far more about the process and the product than I do. At this point I'm wondering if it would make 'more sense' to replace it with a giant python script of some kind and get access to all the logic we need all at once (it would not).

[0] https://taskfile.dev/

task - a task runner and a replacement for make