My guess for why it worked previously is that it used to default to centos 6, whereas now it's using a centos 7 vm image that has different default config.
I agree it should not block the release. Aled Sent from my iPhone > On 17 May 2017, at 15:25, Geoff Macartney <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
