accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2
Date Sun, 12 Mar 2017 03:49:58 GMT
I didn't say I had a better way. I explained what I saw, and I solicited
feedback from the community. I merely hinted at a *possible* better way,
but I wanted to see what the community thought. I'm just trying to discuss
it.

If you don't want to engage with the discussion, simply don't... but please
stop trying to discourage folks from *having* the discussion if *they* are
getting value out of them.

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:24 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a do-ocracy. Please just change the test if you believe to have a
> better way to test what it is trying to test.
>
> On Mar 11, 2017 18:43, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 5:15 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Christopher,
> > >
> > > When I wrote that test, there were issues with the minimum functioning
> > > renewal period as provided by the embedded KDC from Kerby. That is why
> > > this test runs for so long -- anything shorter failed.
> > >
> > >
> > I understand that. There was a comment in the code to that effect.
> >
> >
> > > This test passed at one point. I don't run tests on my own hardware to
> > > catch regressions anymore after previous discussions with you on this
> > > matter.
> >
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean by this, or how it applies. I'm sure it
> > did pass at one point... and may still (hence my question to the group
> > asking whether they observed it passing).
> >
> >
> > > In the future, I'd suggest investing the time into investigating
> > > why the test actually failed instead of picking apart the test itself.
> > >
> > >
> > I did preliminary investigation, and forwarded my observations to the
> group
> > for further discussion. I even suggested a possible cause for the
> failure.
> > But I didn't think it would be productive to dig any deeper without first
> > raising what I found to the group for further discussion and feedback.
> >
> > "picking apart the test itself" is also known as "reviewing code" and
> > "investigating". I think you're taking my criticism of the code
> personally,
> > and I'm not sure why. The fact is, I got as far as I could at 1AM on
> > Saturday, and informed the group of what I experienced, because I thought
> > it was relevant to the vote which expires on Monday morning. It seems
> that
> > you'd prefer I postpone my comments until I have some kind of "perfect
> > knowledge" of what went wrong with the test and how to fix it. Aside from
> > the fact that I knew that I wasn't going to have time before the vote
> > concluded on Monday, that makes no sense to me even under ideal
> > circumstances... if we all did that, why would we even have a group?
> We're
> > better when we rely on each other's expertise and knowledge, and discuss
> > problems (or potential problems) as a team. I would like to see this test
> > improved, but I knew that working on it in silence on my own was not
> going
> > to achieve that.
> >
> >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Ed Coleman wrote:
> > > > I had commented on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4602
> > > that I often have trouble with this and a few others.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not sure it makes me feel any better, but for me, this is not "new"
> to
> > > 1.7.3. I thought it could be due my virtual-box development
> environment,
> > > but I've tried running verify on a AWS c4.2xlarge instance with the
> same
> > > intermittent results. I have had it pass, but more often than not it
> > fails.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To help decide if 1.7.3-rc0 could be a candidate, I made the
> following
> > > chart tracking IT issues – and then at one point the KerberosRenewall
> > > passed for me (and it passed a few times in a row) and I stopped
> updating
> > > the chart.:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Instance Type
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Test
> > > >
> > > > AWS1
> > > >
> > > > AWS2
> > > >
> > > > AW3
> > > >
> > > > OpenBox 1
> > > >
> > > > OpenBox 2
> > > >
> > > > OpenBox3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AssignmentThreadsIT.testConcurrentAssignmentPerformance:91
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BadDeleteMarkersCreatedIT>AccumuloClusterIT.teardownCluster:223 »
> > > TestTimedOut
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ChaoticBalancerIT.test:80->Object.wait:502->Object.wait:-2 »
> > > TestTimedOut test...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ConditionalWriterIT.testTrace:1476 » TestTimedOut test timed out
> after
> > > 60 seco...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DurabilityIT.testWriteSpeed:103 log should be faster than flush
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > FateStarvationIT.run:79 » Runtime java.lang.RuntimeException:
> > > org.apache.zooke...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KerberosRenewalIT.testReadAndWriteThroughTicketLifetime »
> TestTimedOut
> > > test ti...
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ShellServerIT.trace:1444
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TabletStateChangeIteratorIT.test:100 No tables should need attention
> > > expected:<0>  but was:<1>
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > UnorderedWorkAssignerReplicationIT.dataWasReplicatedToThePeerWith
> > outDrain:548
> > > » TableOffline
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KerberosReplicationIT.dataReplicatedToCorrectTable:224 » TestTimedOut
> > > test tim...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am seeing the same intermittent failures with 1.7.3-rc1 and
> > 1.7.3-rc2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 1:53 AM
> > > > To: Accumulo Dev List<dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1, reluctantly, due to KerberosRenewalIT failures described below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Verified hashes/sigs/javadoc jars/source jars/git SHA1/tarball
> > > contents/license stuffs/ITs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I could not get KerberosRenewalIT to pass at all (I tried half a
> dozen
> > > times). It keeps timing out. It looks like it's supposed to finish
> > between
> > > >
> > > > 8 and 9 minutes... an insanely long time for a *single* test to be
> > > running, IMO, especially one as narrowly focused as this one
> > > (ShellServerIT, for example, runs about that long, but covers a very
> > broad
> > > spectrum of Accumulo behavior). This test ignores the scaling
> parameter,
> > > too, so it cannot be scaled with the timeout.factor system property.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The actual behavior of the test is to just create a table, put in
> data,
> > > scan it, then delete the table, every 5 seconds for 8 minutes minimum,
> > > under the assumption that the Kerberos ticket will expire at some point
> > > during that time period, and Accumulo will automatically renew it and
> > > continue functioning (the actual condition of expiration and renewal is
> > > never checked). This seems like something that should be mocked out on
> > the
> > > object responsible for the detecting and handling the renewal, and not
> a
> > > >
> > > > 8-9 minute integration test. It's not even clear from the current
> test
> > > which code is responsible for that (e.g. which code this test is
> > testing).
> > > >
> > > > The most recent failure timed out after 9 minutes trying to create an
> > > Accumulo table. This could indicate that there's a problem with the
> > ticket
> > > not renewing when there's an expiration waiting for a FATE operation...
> > or
> > > it could just be that's where the test happened to be when the 9
> minutes
> > > were up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is anybody else experiencing problems with this test?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In spite of this failure, I'm willing to give my +1 anyway, since I'm
> > > inclined to think this is simply an unreliable test.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:45 PM Keith Turner<  <mailto:
> > keith@deenlo.com>
> > > keith@deenlo.com>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> I also verified the rfile fix.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Keith Turner<  <mailto:
> > > keith@deenlo.com>  keith@deenlo.com>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> Did the following :
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>   * Was able to build Fluo against jars in staging repo.
> > > >
> > > >>>   * Sigs checkout for tarballs
> > > >
> > > >>>   * No diffs between src tarball and rc2 branch
> > > >
> > > >>>   * Looked at diffs between rc1 and rc2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Ed Coleman<  <mailto:
> > > dev1@etcoleman.com>  dev1@etcoleman.com>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>> Accumulo Developers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.3.
This
> > > >
> > > >> candidate
> > > >
> > > >>>> contains two changes from 1.7.3-rc1:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> -<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4600>
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4600 -
> > > >
> > > >> shell does
> > > >
> > > >>>> not fall back to accumulo-site.xml when on classpath.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> -<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4597>
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4597  - NPE
> > > >
> > > >> from
> > > >
> > > >>>> RFile PrintInfo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Git Commit:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>      38d8a1d139eb21f0c9882be877db1b77aa1a45db
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Branch:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>      1.7.3-rc2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>      git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.3' -s rel/1.7.3
> > > >
> > > >>>> 38d8a1d139eb21f0c9882be877db1b77aa1a45db
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Staging repo:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>   <
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> >
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> > > >
> > > >> 065
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Source (official release artifact):
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>   <
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> >
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> > > >
> > > >> 065/or
> > > >
> > > >>>> g/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.3/accumulo-1.7.3-src.tar.gz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Binary:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>   <
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> >
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> > > >
> > > >> 065/or
> > > >
> > > >>>> g/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.3/accumulo-1.7.3-bin.tar.gz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash
> > > >
> > > >>>> for a given artifact.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>      mvn release:prepare&&  mvn release:perform
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Signing keys are available at
> > > >
> > > >>>>   <https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS>
> > > https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> (Expected fingerprint: D87F9F417753D0C88598437EFC4368E0864BCC36)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> > > >
> > > >>>>   <https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.3>
> > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Please vote one of:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote
> > against...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.3 release of Apache Accumulo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> This vote will end on Mon Mar 13 13:00:00 UTC 2017
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> (Mon Mar 13 09:00:00 EDT 2017 / Mon Mar 13 06:00:00 PDT 2017)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>      wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>   <
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> >
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1
> > > >
> > > >> 065/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>      # note the trailing slash is needed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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