Kathey Marsden <[email protected]> writes: > Kristian Waagan wrote: >> >> If you plan to vote against the release if DERBY-4075 is >> outstanding, I think we need to lay a plan for it. > One thing to note is that the community can still make a release even > if I vote -1. It is not a veto and some might say I am too > conservative about these things, but thanks for placing such > importance on my vote and this issue! > >> I've been running the test for weeks without seeing the issue. The >> largest database grew to 67 GB (plus 67 GB for the backup), another >> one grew to 32 GB. >> If we clearly communicate the environment where the problems have >> been seen, people would get the chance to start test runs of their >> own. >> After all, starting the test itself is very simple. >> >> > I tried it on my Windows XP box with IBM 1.6 and cutting the sleeps to > one tenth of their original setting, but ran into out of space errors > after 9 hours. I plan to start playing with this again after my > buddy testing is complete. It would be great if others could kick off > runs.
I've started a run too with a modified Derby. I applied the patch from the bug description in DERBY-3393 to see if that could be related. No errors so far, but I'll keep it running. -- Knut Anders
