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 01:31:17 GMT
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