hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC
Date Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:09:36 GMT
Likewise, no failures with hadoop-2.2


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you provide some detail about the test failure ?
>
> I ran test suite for trunk on hadoop 2.2 and didn't see such failure.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
>

-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.

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