And speak a little more on increasing the forkCount. In fact, the test category is not too rough. The LargeTests just means the test will run a bit long, does not mean it will consume more resources. Maybe the tests just have lots of Thread.sleep so we declare it as LargeTests.
What I can see is that, all the replication related tests are flaky now. This is reasonable. In replication tests, usually we have to set up at least two mini clusters, and the replication system itself will make use of lots of threads. So if you run several replication related tests together, it will easy to overload and cause the UTs to timeout or OOM. So, again, let's do this on a feature branch. It is fine to mess things up on a feature branch. You can do everything you want as the intermediate state does not effect others. On master and branch-2 it is another story. I do not think this should be a blocker for 2.3.0 or 3.0.0. Thanks. 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> 于2020年3月4日周三 下午7:34写道： > Due to the resource limit I do not think it is a good idea to increase the > forkCount... > > FWIW, can we do this on a feature branch and move master and branch-2 back? > > See here > > https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/1221 > > We tried several times and always got a large amount of failed UTs which > are not related to the patch. And we even excluded hundreds of UTs due to > the flaky list! > > This makes it almost impossible to contribute to the project. Even after > several tries we get a green result, due to the excluded hundreds of UTs, > no one know if the patch breaks something. > > Thanks. > > Stack <[email protected]> 于2020年3月4日周三 下午2:55写道： > >> Upstream branch-2 and master nightlies don't look too bad currently. There >> are a few bad runs where there were a bunch of hangs which makes things >> look bad. I upped the number of tests we show from 5 to 10 on branch-2 and >> master which makes it so a failed tests shows longer in the top half of >> the >> flakies page -- and more flakies are listed. On the bottom half, I'd upped >> the ferocity with which we run on GCE to draw out flakies. Needless to >> say, >> they fail more often when contended resources. I might knock the ferocity >> down in the next day or so but am trying to land some patches that cut >> down >> on resource usage and want to see how these do in the flakie runs first. >> >> Master I haven't looked at much... looks like branch-2? Branch-2.2 and >> branch-2.1 look sleepy. Similar amounts of flakies in the nightlies. They >> don't have the ferocity upped so the lower-half GCE section looks >> 'better'. >> I can make them look like branch-2 and master if folks want (smile) but >> its >> probably ok letting the flakies lie in branches that are being bypassed. >> >> Generally, I've been working on unit tests with inspiration and help from >> Mark Miller and Nick. Our tests are in a poor state. They take so long, >> they don't get run anywhere else other than up on jenkins. They rarely >> pass >> and only then on accident if minimal parallelism and jitter. On multi-core >> machines, they use 1 to 2 cores only -- even if the machine has tens of >> them. >> >> I have been trying to burn down the flakies, make the tests complete >> successfully in less time with more parallelism, using all of the machine, >> and make them pass both on jenkins and locally. Of late, have been focused >> on branch-2 since it is calming down getting ready for a 2.3.0RC0. Having >> some success but its a nasty job where it is hard to claim advances >> because the flakies vary w/ the context in which the tests are run. >> Hopefully we'll turn a corner on jenkins soon for folks to enjoy. >> >> Shout if need more detail. >> S >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 6:00 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > But why branch-2.2 and branch-2.1 are still fine? >> > >> > Sean Busbey <[email protected]> 于2020年3月4日周三 上午9:24写道： >> > >> > > I agree in principle that excluding 100s of UTs isn't good. But we >> don't >> > > really have better options given the state of tests and testing >> hardware >> > > currently available to us. >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 19:14 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I think the problem is all UTs are failing randomly... >> > > > >> > > > And it is also not a good idea to exclude hundreds of UTs in pre >> > commit? >> > > > >> > > > Sean Busbey <[email protected]> 于2020年3月4日周三 上午9:11写道： >> > > > >> > > > > Everything in the flake list should be skipped at precommit time. >> Is >> > > that >> > > > > not happening? >> > > > > >> > > > > Are we keeping a shorter flake window so things are bouncing in >> and >> > out >> > > > of >> > > > > the list? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 18:56 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I see recently there are lots of 'flaky tests' related issues >> been >> > > > > resolved >> > > > > > but seems the situation is getting worse? For branch-2.2 the >> flaky >> > > page >> > > > > is >> > > > > > fine, but for master it is totally a mess... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/branch-2.2/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Lots of UTs are in trouble and it makes it really hard to pass >> the >> > > pre >> > > > > > commit check which means it is really hard to contribute to the >> > > > > project... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We need to fix this soon... >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
