On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Kocoloski<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, I was thinking we wouldn't even patch this particular bug in 0.9.1. > Do you think we should? I suppose now's the time, since I just checked in > the code to fix COUCHDB-398 and we're otherwise ready for Noah to cut > another release. Cheers, > > Adam >
I was only saying that fix I proposed that would include changing stats behavior should not go in 0.9.1. > On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > >> Also my new version would probably only exacerbate this issue. >> >> To do this proper we should add a stats end point to query the raw >> values. Adding the counter could be done incrementally, but applying >> my patch would surely not make it into the 0.9.x branch as its a hefty >> change. >> >> As Adam just posted, I'd change this with the minimal code needed for >> 0.9.x and then make sure the updates fix it proper. >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Robert >> Dionne<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Adam, >>> >>> there's also a nit in init_timers, 3 of them are off by a zero according >>> to >>> the comments, though these will be made moot by Paul's new version >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote: >>> >>>> Well, hmmm .... fixing the counters so that /_restart actually restarts >>>> the counters was easy enough, but now I've discovered another bug. The >>>> part >>>> of the stats test that fails is >>>> >>>> couchdb.open_databases.max < 5 >>>> >>>> Let's review. There are two types of counters in the stats module: >>>> absolute and incremental. For incremental counters, the >>>> mean/min/max/stddev >>>> calculations measure the *rate of change* of the counter. The >>>> open_databases counter is an incremental one, so >>>> couchdb.open_databases.max >>>> measures the rate of DB creation, not the largest number of open DBs! I >>>> think the test should simply be >>>> >>>> couchdb.open_databases.current < 5 >>>> >>>> I also think this was a reason why the test suite was only failing >>>> intermittently -- it really depended on how quickly Couch could create >>>> new >>>> files. We should review the tests for other cases like this at some >>>> point. >>>> >>>> I'm cleaning my edits up now and will check stuff in shortly. Cheers, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Chris Anderson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Adam >>>>> Kocoloski<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it was the 0.9.1 tarball that failed for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fix is as easy as disabling the test, so if we're going to do >>>>>> anything I >>>>>> think we might as well fix it. Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 on backporting a fix, since it's so simple. >>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Adam Kocoloski<[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Wojciech Kaczmarek wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 14:51, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> got an error on the testsuite on Fedora 11 : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on the test "stats" : # Assertion 'open_databases > 0 && max >= >>>>>>>>>> open_databases, name' failed: should keep the same number of open >>>>>>>>>> databases >>>>>>>>>> when reaching the max_dbs_open limit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've had the same error for 0.9.0 when I ran couchdb as root >>>>>>>>> (different architecture though, it was OSX 10.4 PPC). I haven't >>>>>>>>> investigated why is it so, just noticed that test failed w/root >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> passed otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also see this failure running CouchDB on OS X 10.5.7 as a >>>>>>>> non-admin >>>>>>>> user. >>>>>>>> I think we might want to dig into this a bit more and either fix it >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> disable the test before releasing 0.9.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't seen this failure in a while, but if it's the 0.9.1 release >>>>>>> candidate that's failing, I wouldn't be against disabling the test. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we confirm that it's the 0.9.1 tarball that fails? Works for me >>>>>>> here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Chris Anderson >>>>>>> http://jchrisa.net >>>>>>> http://couch.io >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Chris Anderson >>>>> http://jchrisa.net >>>>> http://couch.io >>>> >>> >>> > >
