accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.1 RC1
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:12:22 GMT
No, not after the vote closes. I was trying to say that the concerns you
expressed might have had greatest impact if they were expressed with a -1
while the vote was open.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:40 AM, William Slacum <
wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:

> Can you do that after the vote closed? Corey did some good stuff in
> documenting our release process, so I'm confident these releases can be
> iterated on faster now, which would mitigate this situation.
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, reply was to Bill. I know GMail doesn't thread well, so
> top-posting
> > is problematic.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Christopher, are you referring to Keith's last comment or Bill
> Slacum's?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > That seems like a reason to vote -1 (and perhaps to encourage others
> to
> > > do
> > > > so also). I'm not sure this can be helped so long as people have
> > > different
> > > > criteria for their vote, though. If we can fix those issues, I'm
> ready
> > to
> > > > vote on a 1.6.2 :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM, William Slacum <
> > > > wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm a little concerned we had two +1's that mention failures. The
> one
> > > > time
> > > > > when we're supposed to have a clean run through, we have 50% of the
> > > > > participators noticing failure. It doesn't instill much confidence
> in
> > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message