hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC
Date Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:03:52 GMT
Anyone tried the 2.2 hadoop that is up for vote at the moment?  I tried our
unit tests and got these failures:

Failed tests:
testCopyTable(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestCopyTable):
expected:<0> but was:<1>
  testStartStopRow(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestCopyTable):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testMultithreadedTableMapper(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestMultithreadedTableMapper)
  testSimpleCase(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportExport)
  testMetaExport(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportExport)

testExportScannerBatching(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportExport)
  testWithFilter(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportExport)
  testWithDeletes(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportExport)

testExcludeMinorCompaction(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestHFileOutputFormat)

testMRIncrementalLoad(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestHFileOutputFormat)

testMRIncrementalLoadWithSplit(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestHFileOutputFormat)
  testMROnTable(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportTsv):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testMROnTableWithCustomMapper(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportTsv):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testBulkOutputWithTsvImporterTextMapper(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportTsv):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testBulkOutputWithAnExistingTable(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportTsv):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testMROnTableWithTimestamp(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportTsv):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testBulkOutputWithoutAnExistingTable(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestImportTsv):
expected:<0> but was:<1>
  testRowCounterNoColumn(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestRowCounter)

testRowCounterHiddenColumn(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestRowCounter)

testRowCounterExclusiveColumn(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestRowCounter)
  testCombiner(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableMapReduce)
  testMultiRegionTable(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableMapReduce)

testScanEmptyToAPP(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan1)

testScanEmptyToBBA(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan1)

testScanEmptyToBBB(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan1)

testScanEmptyToOPP(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan1)

testScanEmptyToEmpty(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan1)
  testWALPlayer(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestWALPlayer):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testScanYZYToEmpty(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testScanOPPToEmpty(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testScanYYXToEmpty(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testScanOBBToOPP(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testScanOBBToQPP(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testScanFromConfiguration(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testScanYYYToEmpty(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.TestTableInputFormatScan2)

testExportFileSystemState(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestExportSnapshot):
expected:<0> but was:<1>

testSnapshotWithRefsExportFileSystemState(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestExportSnapshot):
expected:<0> but was:<1>


Anyone else seeing this?
St.Ack



On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <sergey@hortonworks.com>wrote:
>
>> >Can we agree if the IT tests are green for a certain number of runs in a
>> row, then it's stable?
>>
>> What do you mean by IT tests are green? Ours are mostly green lately
>> (except for recently fixed bugs).
>> Can you please share some investigation details? Maybe file bugs with
>> description of symptoms, like logs and stuff; are you sure you are hitting
>> 9696 in particular?
>>
>
> We've been trying to keep up HBASE-9696 w/ ongoing notes.  We should do
> better for sure but big picture is that we have evidence that what is in
> HBASE-9696 is an improvement over what we have now having had two sustained
> runs w/o data loss.   The fix is needed so we can do long-running hbase-it
> suites; w/o it we were just crash-landing a few hours in.
>
>
>> 9696 is a very big patch too, it can introduce more bugs and will require
>> more fixing.
>> We do need to have some deadline where large/risky changes cannot go imho.
>>
>>
>>
> Agree but after reviews, I do not know how to avoid it (see 9696 and its
> RB)
>
> I suggest we commit hbase-9696 as is since it an incompatible change with
> its introduction of two new states, states that we do not seem to be able
> to do without.  Then I cut an RC.  If further issue in 9696, we can fine
> tune/bug-fix post release.
>
> On another note, a rig run that has been going for almost 24 hours has
> gone further than any run of the last few weeks.  That is good.
>
> Let us know if need any more info/insight.  Almost there.
> St.Ack
>

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