I have seen this failure multiple times. However, it is not addressed yet. https://travis-ci.community/t/s390x-no-space-left-on-device/8953
It is fine with me until we see more stable results. Regards, Kazuaki Ishizaki From: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> To: dev <dev@arrow.apache.org> Date: 2020/07/03 05:32 Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CI] Reliability of s390x Travis CI build Just looking at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__travis-2Dci.org_github_apache_arrow_builds&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=b70dG_9wpCdZSkBJahHYQ4IwKMdp2hQM29f-ZCGj9Pg&m=d0xgWL-o-XoU1IbNYu0qkgPOn6pka3XNoJI2sqeVL4M&s=cj0Lxl90H9X5cBy4T9Khl4Vw4J0uAdSTySKnVrh-iRw&e= the failure rate on master (which should be green > 95% of the time) is really high. I'm going to open a patch adding to allow_failures until we see this become less flaky On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:39 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > In my experience, both the s390x and ARM builds are flaky on Travis-Ci, > for reasons which seem unrelated to Arrow. The infrastructure seems a > bit unreliable. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > Le 02/07/2020 à 15:15, Wes McKinney a écrit : > > I would be interested to know the empirical reliability of the s390x > > Travis CI build, but my guess is that it is flaking at least 20% of > > the time, maybe more than that. If that's the case, then I think it > > should be added back to allow_failures and at best we can look at it > > perioidically to make sure it's passing some of the time including > > near releases. Thoughts? > >
