On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:24 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, let's keep an eye on the flaky list of master and branch-2 till this > weekend. > > If it is in a bad state then let's discussion again. > > Agree. On the rerunning of flakies, I downed the ferocity. It was NOT 0.5C as I'd thought but 1.0C. I made it 0.25C. After the change, I got a blue dot for first time in a long time (not something to celebrate I'd say since I know we've not fixed all flakies). Looking at the machine these tests run on, its a 16core with 512G of RAM so 0.25C is a forkcount of 4. Before I went messing it was hardcoded to 3 so close enough. Let me push this change on master too. Would be good to go back to 1.0C at some time so flakies stay in the flakey list until fixed but I can work offline first on knocking down the length of the flakey list before hoisting us back to 1.0C. I'll work at downing the length of the flakey lists over the next day. Lets see if it helps w/ patch builds. I took a look at master branch. Its not in same state as branch-2. Looking at nightlies, it seems a bit worse, I see backup tests failing (we don't have this in branch-2). Thanks, S > Stack <[email protected]> 于2020年3月5日周四 上午12:41写道： > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:42 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I've done a few passes on test categorization of late. The notion had > > rotted pretty bad but should be cleaned up now. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > We have at least one test that makes four clusters inside the one JVM. > > > > Yeah, the resource usage in general needs weeding. > > > > Perhaps you are arguing that we just let the state of tests as they are? > > That we let long tests run in series in case two or more might run > together > > and fail because they are profligate in their resource use? > > > I mean increasing the fork count will lead to a random test result as the > test category can not describe the resource usage clearly. You can run > maybe 20+ light-weighted UTs without problem, but if you run 5 tests which > set up 4 mini clusters, the resource will be exhausted and cause the tests > to fail, or at least make it really slow and fail the tests... > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > See previous note. > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > > > > 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... > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
