incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Change in integration test for javelin
Date Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:44:10 GMT
Filed a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1100
to track this issue and assigned to Anthony now.

Thanks
-min

On 1/31/13 4:52 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <tsp@apache.org> wrote:

>Reverted (1b922e8) the earlier fix for a better commit later.
>
>On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 05:18:04PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> I don't know why it exists or it has to be this way either, we should
>> just fix it.
>> 
>> Anthony, if we check, lock db entity and expunge an entity would that
>> save us from race condition, will that work? In such an approach, will
>> this have any side effects: if I just return from actually expunging
>> an entity which is already expunged?
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Anthony Xu <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com>
>>wrote:
>> > That's a bad/quick fix for http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-15922
>> >
>> > Delete account will expunge all VMs for this account immediate ,
>> > if expunge.interval is too short , VM GC may kick in, then two
>> > threads are trying to expunge the same VMs, which causes expunge
>> > fail.
>> >
>> > I think you can remove the hacker, and reopen the bug.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.chen@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 PM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Change in integration test for javelin
>> >>
>> >> Anthony can comment more on, he checked in that code to avoid some
>>race
>> >> conditions in expunge VM.
>> >>
>> >> -min
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:59 PM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM, prasanna <tsp@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >> I know this code exists and it fails all the expunge tests
>> >> internally.
>> >> >> Do you know why it exists? Why should expunge be > 600 always?
>>Seems
>> >> >> like we're overriding the global setting that the admin sets and
>> >> >> without log/warning.
>> >> >
>> >> > I concur - no idea why we would do this. If for no other reason
>>than
>> >> > it makes testing too long, sounds like a bad idea.
>> >> >
>> >> > --David
>
>-- 
>Prasanna.,


Mime
View raw message