accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.1-rc2
Date Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:21:51 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message