Still it looks bad if one of our out-of-the-box examples doesn't work surely?
I didn't test the templates this time round but did so in previous releases, and they all worked then. On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 13:52 Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > IRC: > > [13:46:09] <richardasf> Question @here: if I'm using `openIptables:true`, > is it expected that using JcloudsLocationCustomizer should open iptables > ports - e.g. > > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-library/blob/master/software/nosql/src/main/java/org/apache/brooklyn/entity/nosql/riak/RiakNodeImpl.java#L137-L161 > does not open iptables ports, should it? > [13:47:06] <valio> richardasf, no it is not expected. > [13:48:01] <valio> There is customer requirement for unifying port opening > mechanism and translating security group rules to OS firewall rules. > [13:48:28] <valio> I hope I will submit a suggestion for it this week. > [13:48:39] <richardasf> Ok, that clears up that. thanks valio > > > So it appears that RiakNode is simply incompatible with iptables, so it > should be run with `stopIptables:true` (and therefore run on a cloud which > supports security groups or similar). So there's a simple workaround. > > This would also appear to NOT be a regression. > > In that case I'm comfortable with this not being a release blocker. > > Richard. > > > On 17 May 2017 at 13:26, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's related to iptables. Setting `stopIptables: true` fixes the problem. > > But setting `openIptables: true` does not - I though this odd, since > > something is configuring the AWS security group correctly, so I don't > > understand why it isn't also configuring iptables with the same data... > > > > Richard. > > > > > > On 16 May 2017 at 20:37, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Urgh, we'd better investigate. If there's a failure in one of our "try > >> this to get started!" blueprints I'd consider that a release blocker. > >> Hopefully there's a good reason, or at least a simple workaround... > >> > >> Richard. > >> > >> On 16 May 2017 at 17:28, Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp > >> .com> wrote: > >> > >>> I get this too Richard: > >>> > >>> start failed with error: > >>> org.apache.brooklyn.util.core.task.DynamicSequentialTask$Que > >>> ueAbortedException: > >>> Cannot add a task to Task[start]@iEOrS6Mt whose queue has been aborted > >>> (trying to add Task[Cross-context execution: Invoking effector > >>> joinCluster > >>> on RiakNode:d5gt with parameters {nodeName= > >>> [email protected]}]@U09W94lm) > >>> > >>> Failure running task Cross-context execution: Invoking effector > >>> joinCluster > >>> on RiakNode:vrua with parameters {nodeName= > >>> [email protected]} (lpAS8V4t): > >>> Error > >>> invoking joinCluster at RiakNodeImpl{id=vrua9dk6kf}: Execution failed, > >>> invalid result 1 for joinCluster RiakNodeImpl{id=vrua9dk6kf} > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 17:03 Richard Downer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hello all, > >>> > > >>> > I'm trying out the rc3 and seeing a problem. If I deploy the > "Template > >>> 3" > >>> > app (web server + Riak cluster) from the "New Application" window, > >>> then the > >>> > individual cluster nodes appear to start, but the cluster as a whole > >>> goes > >>> > on fire. > >>> > > >>> > Drilling down, it appears to be a "join cluster" activity which is > >>> failing. > >>> > The stdout of the task says: > >>> > "Node [email protected] is > not > >>> > reachable!" > >>> > > >>> > This is running in AWS EC2 in eu-central-1 - everything is in the > same > >>> > region. > >>> > > >>> > Can anybody else reproduce? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks > >>> > Richard. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 12 May 2017 at 17:09, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > This thread is for discussions related to the release vote. > >>> > > > >>> > > I should clarify what we are looking for in a release vote. > >>> Particularly, > >>> > > we are looking for people to download,validate, and test the > release. > >>> > > Only if you are satisfied that the artifacts are correct and the > >>> quality > >>> > is > >>> > > high enough, should you make a "+1" vote. Alongside your vote you > >>> should > >>> > > list > >>> > > the checks that you made. > >>> > > > >>> > > Here is a good example: > http://markmail.org/message/gevsz2pdciraw6jw > >>> > > > >>> > > The vote is not simply about "the master branch contains the > >>> features I > >>> > > wanted" - > >>> > > it is about making sure that *these* artifacts are *correct* (e.g. > >>> they > >>> > are > >>> > > not corrupted, hashes and signatures pass) and are of *sufficiently > >>> high > >>> > > quality* to be stamped as an official release of The Apache > Software > >>> > > Foundation. > >>> > > > >>> > > Why test the artifacts when master is looking good? Here are some > >>> > reasons: > >>> > > > >>> > > - somebody could have made a commit that broke it, since you last > git > >>> > > pulled > >>> > > - the release branch could have been made at the wrong point, or > >>> > > inconsistently > >>> > > between all of the submodules > >>> > > - something in the release process could have broken it > >>> > > - I could have made a mistake and corrupted the files > >>> > > - a problem with the Apache infrastructure could mean that the > >>> release > >>> > > files are > >>> > > unobtainable or corrupted > >>> > > > >>> > > This is why the release manager needs you to download the actual > >>> release > >>> > > artifacts and try them out. > >>> > > > >>> > > The way Apache works can be a bit arcane sometimes, but it's all > done > >>> > with > >>> > > a reason. If the vote passes then the contents of the email and its > >>> links > >>> > > become "endorsed" by The Apache Software Foundation, and the > >>> Foundation > >>> > > will > >>> > > take on legal liability for them, forever. > >>> > > > >>> > > And of course we want the best possible experience for our users - > >>> so we > >>> > > need > >>> > > the actual release files to be tested manually to make sure that a > >>> > mistake > >>> > > does > >>> > > not ruin the experience for users. > >>> > > > >>> > > So if you can spare an hour or more to download some of the > >>> artifacts and > >>> > > try > >>> > > them out, then it will be *very* useful! The vote lasts for three > >>> days so > >>> > > there's no need to rush to get a vote in. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks! > >>> > > Richard Downer > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
