+1
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Sijie,
BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is marked
for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ?
Best Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
To: Rakesh R
Cc: [email protected]; Sijie Guo
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be
enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather
than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail consistently.
-Flavio
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
> I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds timeout".
> That is too small value.
> Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test case
> again.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh R
> Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Sijie Guo
> Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
>>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
>>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
>
> I could see the following call can take some amount of time
> Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
>
> I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do
> you have the logs available with you.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
> To: Sijie Guo
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry
> to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
>
> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
> ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
> milliseconds
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that
>> might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
>> logs of CookieTest
>>
>> Host address: 127.0.0.1
>> Host name: localhost
>>
>> while in the vm I get this:
>>
>> Host address: 10.0.0.4
>> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>>
>> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>>
>> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
>> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
>> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
>> }
>>
>> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
>>> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
>>> different.
>>>
>>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would
>>> make the tests more deterministic.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> wrote:
>>> Sijie,
>>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps
>>> to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem
>>> to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected]
>>><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one
>>> test case failure.
>>>
>>> -Rakesh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>]
>>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>>
>>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those
>>> tests for producing the new RC.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
