Ah, that's a thought to think about. The conclusion I came was made specifically because the vote had ended, so idk if it would've helped. Of course, actually participating on my end would've been the best course of action.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > No, not after the vote closes. I was trying to say that the concerns you > expressed might have had greatest impact if they were expressed with a -1 > while the vote was open. > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:40 AM, William Slacum < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Can you do that after the vote closed? Corey did some good stuff in > > documenting our release process, so I'm confident these releases can be > > iterated on faster now, which would mitigate this situation. > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Sorry, reply was to Bill. I know GMail doesn't thread well, so > > top-posting > > > is problematic. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Corey Nolet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Christopher, are you referring to Keith's last comment or Bill > > Slacum's? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > > > 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 < > > > > > [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > > > > > 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< > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >> 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< > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > 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< > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> 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< > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Russ Weeks< > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> [email protected]> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> 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< > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
