accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.1 RC1
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:14 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message