accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time for a 1.8.0 release?
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:24:57 GMT
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:47 PM Sean Busbey <> wrote:
>> My understanding was that maintenance releases (aka double dot, e.g.
>> 1.7.2) had relaxed criteria because we expected the scope of changes
>> in them to be more limited. Even so, the release notes for 1.7.2,
>> 1.7.1, and 1.7.0 all claim the ITs passed.
> Even those releases have periodic IT failure.
>> Is there a reason we can't parallelize the ITs?
> We can. Eric's mrit effort was all intended towards that. But, that's not
> the same as CI passing. I don't know what it would take to parallelize them
> in a CI server.
>> What's stopping
>> builds.a.o from running them? Specific requests from projects to asf
>> infra can get us resources if that's the problem.
> I spoke to infra in HipChat about this a a few weeks ago, and mentioned a
> few things which impact builds on ASF jenkins (
> 1. Accumulo has an excessive number of tests to run.
> 2. Build timeouts with Jenkins can abort builds.
> 3. Tests are timing sensitive, and are affected by VM/host configuration
> and contention with other concurrent builds from other projects.
> 4. Tests need lots of RAM and storage (at least 4GB RAM, but ideally no
> less than 16GB, and at least 6 GB for a workspace)
> 5. Tests need specialized system configuration, (increasing ulimits,
> optimizing kernel settings for swappiness, etc.)
> What we really need for reliable IT passing in CI, is exclusive use of
> dedicated, bare-metal beefy build machines, for 6+ hours per build x 4
> branches minimum, plus another 6+ hours for each pull request and other
> builds which skipITs, so we can get immediate feedback on unit tests and
> compilation errors.

I took a first pass at a nightly (~once per 12 hours) job on asf build for
master and it did okay, considering that I haven't spent any time trying to
tune anything:

2 hr 9 min, 7 failures out of 202 tests.

I think we can do this; if anyone else is interested I'll start a new thread
where we can discuss.


View raw message