Christopher, are you referring to Keith's last comment or Bill Slacum's? On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> That seems like a reason to vote -1 (and perhaps to encourage others to do > so also). I'm not sure this can be helped so long as people have different > criteria for their vote, though. If we can fix those issues, I'm ready to > vote on a 1.6.2 :) > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM, William Slacum < > wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net> wrote: > > > I'm a little concerned we had two +1's that mention failures. The one > time > > when we're supposed to have a clean run through, we have 50% of the > > participators noticing failure. It doesn't instill much confidence in me. > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Please make a ticket for it and supply the MAC directories for the test > > > and the failsafe output. > > > > > > It doesn't fail for me. It's possible that there is some edge case that > > > you and Bill are hitting that I'm not. > > > > > > > > > Corey Nolet wrote: > > > > > >> I'm seeing the behavior under Max OS X and Fedora 19 and they have > been > > >> consistently failing for me. I'm thinking ACCUMULO-3073. Since others > > are > > >> able to get it to pass, I did not think it should fail the vote solely > > on > > >> that but I do think it needs attention, quickly. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bill Havanki< > > bhava...@clouderagovt.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> I haven't had an opportunity to try it again since my +1, but prior > to > > >>> that > > >>> it has been consistently failing. > > >>> > > >>> - I tried extending the timeout on the test, but it would still time > > out. > > >>> - I see the behavior on Mac OS X and under CentOS. (I wonder if it's > a > > >>> JVM > > >>> thing?) > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Corey Nolet<cjno...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Vote passes with 4 +1's and no -1's. > > >>>> > > >>>> Bill, were you able to get the IT to run yet? I'm still having > > timeouts > > >>>> > > >>> on > > >>> > > >>>> my end as well. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> The crux of it is that both of the errors in the CRC where single > bit > > >>>>> "variants". > > >>>>> > > >>>>> y instead of 9 and p instead of 0 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Both of these cases are a '1' in the most significant bit of the > byte > > >>>>> instead of a '0'. We recognized these because y and p are outside > of > > >>>>> > > >>>> the > > >>> > > >>>> hex range. Fixing both of these fixes the CRC error (manually > > >>>>> > > >>>> verified). > > >>> > > >>>> That's all we know right now. I'm currently running memtest86. I do > > not > > >>>>> have ECC ram, so it *is* theoretically possible that was the cause. > > >>>>> > > >>>> After > > >>> > > >>>> running memtest for a day or so (or until I need my desktop > functional > > >>>>> again), I'll go back and see if I can reproduce this again. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Mike Drob wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Any chance the IRC chats can make it only the ML for posterity? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Mike > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Russ Weeks< > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> rwe...@newbrightidea.com> > > >>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Interesting that "y" (0x79) and "9" (0x39) are one bit "away" > > from > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> each > > >>>> > > >>>>> other. I blame cosmic rays! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It is interesting, and thats only half of the story. Its been > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> interesting > > >>>>>>> chatting w/ Josh about this on irc and hearing about his > findings. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Josh Elser< > josh.el...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The offending keys are: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 389a85668b6ebf8e 2ff6:4a78 [] 1411499115242 > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3a10885b-d481-4d00-be00-0477e231ey65:000000008576b169: > > >>>>>>>>>>> 0cd98965c9ccc1d0:ba15529e > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The careful eye will notice that the UUID in the first > > >>>>>>>>>>> component > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>> > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> value has a different suffix than the next corrupt key/value > > (ends > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>> > > >>>>> "ey65" instead of "e965"). Fixing this in the Value and re-running > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>> > > >>>>> CRC > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> makes it pass. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 7e56b58a0c7df128 5fa0:6249 [] 1411499311578 > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3a10885b-d481-4d00-be00-0477e231e965:0000p000872d60eb: > > >>>>>>>>>>> 499fa72752d82a7c:5c5f19e8 > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> // Bill Havanki > > >>> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > > >>> // 443.686.9283 > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
