couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:49:50 GMT
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Filipe David Manana
<fdmanana@apache.org> wrote:
> Jason, can't reproduce those results, not even close:
>
> http://friendpaste.com/1L4pHH8WQchaLIMCWhKX9Z
>
> Before COUCHDB-1186
>
> fdmanana 16:58:02 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)> docs=500000
> batch=50000 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl
> Server: CouchDB/1.2.0a-a68a792-git (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
> {"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.2.0a-a68a792-git"}
>
> [INFO] Created DB named `db1'
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> Building view.
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"doc1","key":1,"value":1}
> ]}
>
> real    0m56.241s
> user    0m0.006s
> sys     0m0.005s
>
>
> After COUCHDB-1186
>
> fdmanana 17:02:02 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)> docs=500000
> batch=50000 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl
> Server: CouchDB/1.2.0a-f023052-git (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
> {"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.2.0a-f023052-git"}
>
> [INFO] Created DB named `db1'
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> Building view.
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"doc1","key":1,"value":1}
> ]}
>
> real    1m11.694s
> user    0m0.006s
> sys     0m0.005s
> fdmanana 17:06:01 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)>
>
>
> 1.2.0a-f023052-git with patch
> http://friendpaste.com/178nPFgfyyeGf2vtNRpL0w  applied on top
>
> fdmanana 17:06:53 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)> docs=500000
> batch=50000 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl
> Server: CouchDB/1.2.0a-f023052-git (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
> {"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.2.0a-f023052-git"}
>
> [INFO] Created DB named `db1'
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> [INFO] Uploaded 50000 documents via _bulk_docs
> Building view.
> {"total_rows":500000,"offset":0,"rows":[
> {"id":"doc1","key":1,"value":1}
> ]}
>
> real    0m51.089s
> user    0m0.006s
> sys     0m0.004s
> fdmanana 17:10:29 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)>
>
>
> Can you try with R14B0x and also with the patch
> http://friendpaste.com/178nPFgfyyeGf2vtNRpL0w ?
>
> Back then I made all testing on a machine with a spinning disk, so the
> writer process was slower and likely dequeing more KV pairs from the
> work queue on each dequeue operation. The tests I did just now are on
> a machine with a ssd disk.
>

Yeah, I've seen the btree behave quite differently on SSD's vs HDD's
(same code had drastically different runtime characteristics).

In other words, can we get a report of what type of disk everyone is running on?

>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi, Filipe. Most people seem to be holding their OTP build constant
>> for these tests.
>>
>> If you have the time, would you please check out
>> https://github.com/jhs/slow_couchdb
>>
>> It uses seatoncouch mixed with Bob's script to run a basic benchmark.
>> I expect more template types to grow to help create different data
>> profiles.
>>
>> Anyway, here are my results with 500k documents. Note that I built
>> from your optimization commit, then its parent.
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/1928169
>>
>> tl;dr = 2:50 before your commit; 4:13 after.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Filipe David Manana
>> <fdmanana@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I just tried Jason's script (modified it to use 500 000 docs instead
>>> of 50 000) against 1.2.x and 1.1.1, using OTP R14B03. Here's my
>>> results:
>>>
>>> 1.2.x:
>>>
>>> $ port=5984 ./test.sh
>>> "none"
>>> Filling db.
>>> done
>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>> Server: CouchDB/1.2.0 (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
>>> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:08:43 GMT
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>> Content-Length: 252
>>> Cache-Control: must-revalidate
>>>
>>> {"db_name":"db1","doc_count":500001,"doc_del_count":0,"update_seq":500001,"purge_seq":0,"compact_running":false,"disk_size":130494577,"data_size":130490673,"instance_start_time":"1330358830830086","disk_format_version":6,"committed_update_seq":500001}
>>> Building view.
>>>
>>> real    1m5.725s
>>> user    0m0.006s
>>> sys     0m0.005s
>>> done
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.1.1:
>>>
>>> $ port=5984 ./test.sh
>>> ""
>>> Filling db.
>>> done
>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>> Server: CouchDB/1.1.2a785d32f-git (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
>>> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:15:33 GMT
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>>> Content-Length: 230
>>> Cache-Control: must-revalidate
>>>
>>> {"db_name":"db1","doc_count":500001,"doc_del_count":0,"update_seq":500001,"purge_seq":0,"compact_running":false,"disk_size":122142818,"instance_start_time":"1330359233327316","disk_format_version":5,"committed_update_seq":500001}
>>> Building view.
>>>
>>> real    1m4.249s
>>> user    0m0.006s
>>> sys     0m0.005s
>>> done
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see any significant difference there.
>>>
>>> Regarding COUCHDB-1186, the only thing that might cause some non
>>> determinism and affect performance is the queing/dequeing. Depending
>>> on timings, it's possible the writer is dequeing less items per
>>> dequeue operation and therefore inserting smaller batches into the
>>> btree. The following small change ensures larger batches (while still
>>> respecting the queue max size/item count):
>>>
>>> http://friendpaste.com/178nPFgfyyeGf2vtNRpL0w
>>>
>>> Running the test with this change:
>>>
>>> $ port=5984 ./test.sh
>>> "none"
>>> Filling db.
>>> done
>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>> Server: CouchDB/1.2.0 (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
>>> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:20 GMT
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>> Content-Length: 252
>>> Cache-Control: must-revalidate
>>>
>>> {"db_name":"db1","doc_count":500001,"doc_del_count":0,"update_seq":500001,"purge_seq":0,"compact_running":false,"disk_size":130494577,"data_size":130490673,"instance_start_time":"1330359706846104","disk_format_version":6,"committed_update_seq":500001}
>>> Building view.
>>>
>>> real    0m49.762s
>>> user    0m0.006s
>>> sys     0m0.005s
>>> done
>>>
>>>
>>> If there's no objection, I'll push that patch.
>>>
>>> Also, another note, I noticed sometime ago that with master, using OTP
>>> R15B I got a performance drop of 10% to 15% compared to using master
>>> with OTP R14B04. Maybe it applies to 1.2.x as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Bob D, can you give more details on the data set you're testing?
>>>> Number of docs, size/complexity of docs, etc? Basically, enough info
>>>> that I could write a script to automate building an equivalent
>>>> database.
>>>>
>>>> I wrote a quick bash script to make a database and time a view build
>>>> here: http://friendpaste.com/7kBiKJn3uX1KiGJAFPv4nK
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>>>
>>>> On 27 February 2012 13:15, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:58 , Bob Dionne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I hope I'm not conflating things by
continuing the discussion here, I thought that's what you requested?
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion we had on IRC was regarding collecting more data items
for the performance regression before we start to draw conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>> My intention here is to understand what needs doing before we can release
1.2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll reply inline for the other issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just downloaded the release candidate again to start fresh. "make
distcheck" hangs on this step:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Users/bitdiddle/Downloads/apache-couchdb-1.2.0/apache-couchdb-1.2.0/_build/../test/etap/150-invalid-view-seq.t
......... 6/?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just stops completely. This is on R15B which has been rebuilt to
use the recommended older SSL version. I haven't looked into this crashing too closely but
I'm suspicious that I only see it with couchdb and never with bigcouch and never using the
1.2.x branch from source or any branch for that matter
>>>>>
>>>>> From the release you should run `make check`, not make distcheck. But
I assume you see a hang there too, as I have and others (yet not everybody), too. I can't
comment on BigCouch and what is different there. It is interesting that 1.2.x won't hang.
For me, `make check` in 1.2.x on R15B hangs sometimes, in different places. I'm currently
trying to gather more information about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question here is whether `make check` passing in R15B is a release
requirement. In my vote I considered no, but I am happy to go with a community decision if
it emerges. What is your take here?
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, this just shouldn't be a question, so we should investigate
why this happens at all and address the issue, hence COUCHDB-1424. Any insight here would
be appreciated as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the command line tests, 2,7, 27, and 32 fail. but it differs from
run to run.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you mean the JS tests. Again, this isn't supposed to work in
1.2.x. I'm happy to backport my changes from master to 1.2.x to make that work, but I refrained
from that because I didn't want to bring too much change to a release branch. I'm happy to
reconsider, but I don't think a release vote is a good place to discuss feature backports.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Chrome attachment_ranges fails and it hangs on replicator_db
>>>>>
>>>>> This one is an "explaining away", but I think it is warranted. Chrome
is broken for attachment_ranges. I don't know if we reported this upstream (Robert N?), but
this isn't a release blocker. For the replicator_db test, can you try running that in other
browsers. I understand it is not the best of situation (hence the move to the cli test suite
for master), but if you get this test to pass in at least one other browsers, this isn't a
problem that holds 1.2.x.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> With respect to performance I think comparisons with 1.1.x are important.
I think almost any use case, contrived or otherwise should not be dismissed as a pathological
or edge case. Bob's script is as simple as it gets and to me is a great smoke test. We need
to figure out the reason 1.2 is clearly slower in this case. If there are specific scenarios
that 1.2.x is optimized for then we should document that and provide reasons for the trade-offs
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to make absolutely clear that I take any report of performance
regression very seriously. But I'm rather annoyed that no information about this ends up on
dev@. I understand that on IRC there's some shared understanding of a few scenarios where
performance regressions can be shown. I asked three times now that these be posted to this
mailing list. I'm not asking for a comprehensive report, but anything really. I found Robert
Newson's simple test script on IRC and ran that to test a suspicion of mine which I posted
in an earlier mail (tiny docs -> slower, bigger docs -> faster). Nobody else bothered
to post this here. I see no discussion about what is observed, what is expected, what would
be acceptable for a release of 1.2.0 as is and what not.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as this list is concerned, we know that a few people claimed that
things are slower and it's very real and that we should hold the 1.2.0 release for it. I'm
more than happy to hold the release until we figured out the things I asked for above and
help out figuring it all out. But we need something to work with here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also understand that this is a voluntary project and people don't have
infinite time to spend, but at least a message of "we're collecting things, will report when
done", would be *great* to start. So far we only have a "hold the horses, there might be a
something going on".
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if this request is unreasonable or whether I am overreacting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the rant.
>>>>>
>>>>> To anyone who has been looking into performance regression, can you please
send to this list any info you have? If you have a comprehensive analysis, awesome, if you
just ran some script on a machine, just send us that, let's collect all the data to get this
situation solved! We need your help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> tl;dr:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's three issues at hand:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Robert D -1'd a release artefact. We want to understand what needs
to happen to make a release. This includes assessing the issues he raises and squaring them
against the release vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>  - There's a vague (as far as dev@ is concerned) report about a performance
regression. We need to get behind that.
>>>>>
>>>>>  - There's been a non-dev@ discussion about the performance regression
and that is referenced to influence a dev@ decision. We need that discussion's information
on dev@ to proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And to make it absolutely clear again. The performance regression *is*
an issue and I am very grateful for the people, including Robert Newson, Robert Dionne and
Jason Smith, who look into it. It's just that we need to treat this as an issue and get all
this info onto dev@ or into JRIA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for your reply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't implying we should try to explain anything away. All
of these are valid concerns, I just wanted to get a better understanding on where the bit
flips from +0 to -1 and subsequently, how to address that boundary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ideally we can just fix all of the things you mention, but I
think it is important to understand them in detail, that's why I was going into them. Ultimately,
I want to understand what we need to do to ship 1.2.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 21:22 , Bob Dionne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm -1 based on all of my evaluation. I've spent a few hours
on this release now yesterday and today. It doesn't really pass what I would call the "smoke
test". Almost everything I've run into has an explanation:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. crashes out of the box - that's R15B, you need to recompile
SSL and Erlang (we'll note on release notes)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have we spent any time on figuring out what the trouble here
is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. etaps hang running make check. Known issue. Our etap code
is out of date, recent versions of etap don't even run their own unit tests
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have seen the etap hang as well, and I wasn't diligent enough
to report it in JIRA, I have done so now (COUCHDB-1424).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. Futon tests fail. Some are known bugs (attachment ranges
in Chrome) . Both Chrome and Safari also hang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have more details on where Chrome and Safari hang? Can
you try their private browsing features, double/triple check that caches are empty? Can you
get to a situation where you get all tests succeeding across all browsers, even if individual
ones fail on one or two others?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. standalone JS tests fail. Again most of these run when
run by themselves
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which ones?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. performance. I used real production data *because* Stefan
on user reported performance degradation on his data set. Any numbers are meaningless for
a single test. I also ran scripts that BobN and Jason Smith posted that show a difference
between 1.1.x and 1.2.x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are conflating an IRC discussion we've had into this thread.
The performance regression reported is a good reason to look into other scenarios where we
can show slowdowns. But we need to understand what's happening. Just from looking at dev@
all I see is some handwaving about some reports some people have done (Not to discourage any
work that has been done on IRC and user@, but for the sake of a release vote thread, this
related information needs to be on this mailing list).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said on IRC, I'm happy to get my hands dirty to understand
the regression at hand. But we need to know where we'd draw a line and say this isn't acceptable
for a 1.2.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6. Reviewed patch pointed to by Jason that may be the cause
but it's hard to say without knowing the code analysis that went into the changes. You can
see obvious local optimizations that make good sense but those are often the ones that get
you, without knowing the call counts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a point that wasn't included in your previous mail. It's
great that there is progress, thanks for looking into this!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many of these issues can be explained away, but I think end
users will be less forgiving. I think we already struggle with view performance. I'm interested
to see how others evaluate this regression.
>>>>>>>> I'll try this seatoncouch tool you mention later to see if
I can construct some more definitive tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I'm not trying to explain anything away. I want to get
a shared understanding of the issues you raised and where we stand on solving them squared
against the ongoing 1.2.0 release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And again: Thanks for doing this thorough review and looking
into performance issue. I hope with your help we can understand all these things a lot better
very soon :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 13:58 , Bob Dionne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> R15B on OS X Lion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I rebuilt OTP with an older SSL and that gets past
all the crashes (thanks Filipe). I still see hangs when running make check, though any particular
etap that hangs will run ok by itself. The Futon tests never run to completion in Chrome without
hanging and the standalone JS tests also have fails.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What part of this do you consider the -1? Can you try
running the JS tests in Firefox and or Safari? Can you get all tests pass at least once across
all browsers? The cli JS suite isn't supposed to work, so that isn't a criterion. I've seen
the hang in make check for R15B while individual tests run as well, but I don't consider this
blocking. While I understand and support the notion that tests shouldn't fail, period, we
gotta work with what we have and master already has significant improvements. What would you
like to see changed to not -1 this release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tested the performance of view indexing, using
a modest 200K doc db with a large complex view and there's a clear regression between 1.1.x
and 1.2.x Others report similar results
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is a large complex view? The complexity of the map/reduce
functions is rarely an indicator of performance, it's usually input doc size and output/emit()/reduce
data size. How big are the docs in your test and how big is the returned data? I understand
the changes for 1.2.x will improve larger-data scenarios more significantly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Bob Dionne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sorry Noah, I'm in debug mode today so I don't
care to start mucking with my stack, recompiling erlang, etc...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did try using that build repeatedly and it
crashes all the time. I find it very odd and I had seen those before as I said on my older
macbook.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do see the hangs Jan describes in the etaps,
they have been there right along, so I'm confident this just the SSL issue. Why it only happens
on the build is puzzling, any source build of any branch works just peachy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I'd say I'm +1 based on my use of the 1.2.x
branch but I'd like to hear from Stefan, who reported the severe performance regression. BobN
seems to think we can ignore that, it's something flaky in that fellow's environment. I tend
to agree but I'm conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone convince me this bus error stuff
and segfaults is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> blocking issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob tells me that he's followed the steps
above and he's still experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, you did follow the steps to install
your own SSL right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Jan Lehnardt
<jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 00:28 , Noah Slater
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like call a vote for the
Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> round.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We encourage the whole community
to download and test these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release artifacts so that any critical
issues can be resolved before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is made. Everyone is free
to vote on this release, so get stuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are voting on the following release
artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~nslater/dist/1.2.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These artifacts have been built from
the following tree-ish in Git:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4cd60f3d1683a3445c3248f48ae064fb573db2a1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please follow the test procedure
before voting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Happy voting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signature and hashes check out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mac OS X 10.7.3, 64bit, SpiderMonkey
1.8.0, Erlang R14B04: make check
>>>>>>>>>>>>> works fine, browser tests in Safari work
fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mac OS X 10.7.3, 64bit, SpiderMonkey
1.8.5, Erlang R14B04: make check
>>>>>>>>>>>>> works fine, browser tests in Safari work
fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FreeBSD 9.0, 64bit, SpiderMonkey 1.7.0,
Erlang R14B04: make check works
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine, browser tests in Safari work fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CentOS 6.2, 64bit, SpiderMonkey 1.8.5,
Erlang R14B04: make check works
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine, browser tests in Firefox work fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu 11.4, 64bit, SpiderMonkey 1.8.5,
Erlang R14B02: make check works
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine, browser tests in Firefox work fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu 10.4, 32bit, SpiderMonkey 1.8.0,
Erlang R13B03: make check fails in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 076-file-compression.t: https://gist.github.com/1893373
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 220-compaction-daemon.t: https://gist.github.com/1893387
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This on runs in a VM and is 32bit, so
I don't know if there's anything in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tests that rely on 64bittyness or
the R14B03. Filipe, I think you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worked on both features, do you have
an idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried running it all through Erlang
R15B on Mac OS X 1.7.3, but a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way into `make check` the tests would
just stop and hang. The last time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly in 160-vhosts.t, but when
run alone, that test finished in under
>>>>>>>>>>>>> five seconds. I'm not sure what the issue
is here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite the things above, I'm happy to
give this a +1 if we put a warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about R15B on the download page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great work all!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Filipe David Manana,
>>>
>>> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
>>>  Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
>>>  That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
>
>
>
> --
> Filipe David Manana,
>
> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
>  Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
>  That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

Mime
View raw message