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 17:34:51 GMT
Oh, yes, apologies if I gave that impression. I'm sure we'll figure this
out, and if it is a problem in Accumulo's Kerberos feature (and not
something stupid on my end), I'm sure we're committed to fixing it quickly
and having it in the next bugfix release.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message