Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGHyZ6JNQr8qipMisSGm_2jEXsHNwmOr2xxM_U49fn4ysZ1x0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMJ0=qG7gFVb_TP=jPQ_1JVpmvb4zPbfxS93aQ4P0rJTiW8kkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9ZP883BsKvi6pcYRGiSKo6xm_VqRc3W9UM4Bacb-1wB3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMJ0=qEGjH8UtFNtufup=2c5K+F5DB4CvFvkJtPktxAFCyR8fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMJ0=qHdu3m3YLZzv8Te5uZp4gUZE-ixj9Ksv4Zy6Q48wjTctQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGUtCHocFhBy6XDhA-H+y-ykWpEkMRY+mG1BhKNBCkdHzaoy1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMJ0=qGQo31uR=-usfPztRVRMjsdCd8St7z7HkpUMAKFnOWqKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+GMDwpy04yUQSbxTgf=uKaxDS69i7HBmMh=-WUF8xRew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMJ0=qGPFcNUW6_mnxq1EUthkUOS9_vVoJ6n2tRWb55p_7-OuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6KgodQ=ZzFdPNDpKM5r-5LsOm8e64XPjgVDzL14K6fq7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9aY98FF17WEXhutuMxzEm8Y6W3OgxSLKFjeiQqHQGi2cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHyZ6JNQr8qipMisSGm_2jEXsHNwmOr2xxM_U49fn4ysZ1x0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:41:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMJ0=qF7qXxoGD6fBYUYF+Wx5azmmTWb7-MzVRuomLqncjuHkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Time for a 1.8.0 release?
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f4fda2703060539419e94
archived-at: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:41:18 -0000

--001a113f4fda2703060539419e94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Sean,

I'm interested.  How do I get granted more permissions?  I can't see the
configuration you used, but I can launch a new build.

Mike

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:47 PM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> 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 (builds.apache.org):
> >
> > 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:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/Accumulo-master-IT/1/
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
>

--001a113f4fda2703060539419e94--