accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.1 RC1
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2014 04:40:45 GMT
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