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] Accumulo 1.7.1-rc2
Date Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:31:15 GMT
Thanks. I've been doing a bit with the Kerberos stuff (in real 
environments) and what is in 1.7.1 seems pretty solid to me. I just 
wanted to make sure people didn't avoid it, thinking that it was not stable.

Christopher wrote:
> Yeah, that's fine. I'll just reserve judgement for now, and defer to
> others, since I don't have time to set up a separate Kerberos environment.
> As far as I can tell, the feature works fine, up to a point. I'm just not
> sure what to make of this particular test. As you said, though, it's quite
> possibly just MiniKDC instabilities.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:10 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Welcome to why people say "Kerberos is hard".
>>
>> I think I said in chat, but increasing the timeout factor is not going
>> to make that test pass if it can't pass the first time. The MiniKDC the
>> tests use are not representative of a real KDC. I'd ask that you deploy
>> Accumulo with Kerberos before passing judgement on the feature as a whole.
>>
>> I still have your IT logs -- I didn't get a chance to look at them
>> yesterday. I'll try to do so today.
>>
>> Christopher wrote:
>>> I had a lot of difficulty getting the Kerberos ITs to pass without timing
>>> out. I was never able to get the KerberosRenewalIT to pass, even after
>>> re-running several times (still trying), and even with a timeout factor
>> of
>>> 20. I do not have a strong confidence in the quality of the Kerberos
>>> features as is, so it's not a critical feature for me, so I'll defer to
>>> others tests for that.
>

Mime
View raw message