accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.1 RC1
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:18:23 GMT
Please make a ticket for it and supply the MAC directories for the test 
and the failsafe output.

It doesn't fail for me. It's possible that there is some edge case that 
you and Bill are hitting that I'm not.

Corey Nolet wrote:
> I'm seeing the behavior under Max OS X and Fedora 19 and they have been
> consistently failing for me. I'm thinking ACCUMULO-3073. Since others are
> able to get it to pass, I did not think it should fail the vote solely on
> that but I do think it needs attention, quickly.
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bill Havanki<bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't had an opportunity to try it again since my +1, but prior to that
>> it has been consistently failing.
>>
>> - I tried extending the timeout on the test, but it would still time out.
>> - I see the behavior on Mac OS X and under CentOS. (I wonder if it's a JVM
>> thing?)
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Corey Nolet<cjnolet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Vote passes with 4 +1's and no -1's.
>>>
>>> Bill, were you able to get the IT to run yet? I'm still having timeouts
>> on
>>> my end as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> The crux of it is that both of the errors in the CRC where single bit
>>>> "variants".
>>>>
>>>> y instead of 9 and p instead of 0
>>>>
>>>> Both of these cases are a '1' in the most significant bit of the byte
>>>> instead of a '0'. We recognized these because y and p are outside of
>> the
>>>> hex range. Fixing both of these fixes the CRC error (manually
>> verified).
>>>> That's all we know right now. I'm currently running memtest86. I do not
>>>> have ECC ram, so it *is* theoretically possible that was the cause.
>> After
>>>> running memtest for a day or so (or until I need my desktop functional
>>>> again), I'll go back and see if I can reproduce this again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any chance the IRC chats can make it only the ML for posterity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Keith Turner<keith@deenlo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>   On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Russ Weeks<
>> rweeks@newbrightidea.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Interesting that "y" (0x79) and "9" (0x39) are one bit "away" from
>>> each
>>>>>>> other. I blame cosmic rays!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   It is interesting, and thats only half of the story.  Its been
>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>> chatting w/ Josh about this on irc and hearing about his findings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The offending keys are:
>>>>>>>>>> 389a85668b6ebf8e 2ff6:4a78 [] 1411499115242
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3a10885b-d481-4d00-be00-0477e231ey65:000000008576b169:
>>>>>>>>>> 0cd98965c9ccc1d0:ba15529e
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The careful eye will notice that the UUID in the
first component
>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> value has a different suffix than the next corrupt key/value
(ends
>>> with
>>>>>>>> "ey65" instead of "e965"). Fixing this in the Value and re-running
>>> the
>>>>>>> CRC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> makes it pass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7e56b58a0c7df128 5fa0:6249 [] 1411499311578
>>>>>>>>>> 3a10885b-d481-4d00-be00-0477e231e965:0000p000872d60eb:
>>>>>>>>>> 499fa72752d82a7c:5c5f19e8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> // Bill Havanki
>> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> // 443.686.9283
>>
>

Mime
View raw message