That's the range I get in the vm. I also checked the load from log test and the port it was trying to bind to is 11222.
-Flavio > On 22 May 2015, at 23:14, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > > No worries on the delay. Thank you for sharing. > > That's interesting. The symptoms look similar to something we had seen from > an earlier iteration of the ZOOKEEPER-2183 patch that was assigning ports > from the ephemeral port range. This would cause a brief (but noticeable) > window in which the OS could assign the same ephemeral port to a client > socket while a server test still held onto that port assignment. It was > particularly noticeable for tests that stop and restart a server on the same > port, such as tests covering client reconnect logic. In the final committed > version of the ZOOKEEPER-2183 patch, I excluded the ephemeral port range from > use by port assignment. Typically, that's 32768 - 61000 on Linux. > > Is it possible that this VM is configured to use a different ephemeral port > range? Here is what I get from recent stock Ubuntu and CentOS installs: > > > cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range > 32768 61000 > > --Chris Nauroth > > From: Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 2:47 PM > To: Chris Nauroth <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Zookeeper <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha candidate 1 > > Sorry about the delay, here are the logs: > > http://people.apache.org/~fpj/logs-3.5.1-rc1/ > <http://people.apache.org/~fpj/logs-3.5.1-rc1/> > > the load test is giving bind exceptions. > > -Flavio > >> On 21 May 2015, at 23:02, Chris Nauroth <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks, sharing logs would be great. I'll try to repro independently with >> JDK8 too. >> >> --Chris Nauroth >> >> >> >> >> On 5/21/15, 2:30 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>> I accidently removed dev from the response, bringing it back in. >>> The tests are failing intermittently for me. In the last run, I got these >>> failing: >>> [junit] Tests run: 8, Failures: 0, Errors: 4, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: >>> 30.444 sec[junit] Test org.apache.zookeeper.test.LoadFromLogTest FAILED >>> [junit] Tests run: 86, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: >>> 264.272 sec[junit] Test org.apache.zookeeper.test.NioNettySuiteTest FAILED >>> Still the same setup, linux + jdk 8. I can share logs if necessary. >>> -Flavio >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:28 PM, Chris Nauroth >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Ah, my mistake. I saw "Azure" and my brain jumped right to "Windows". >>> I suppose the thing for me to check then is JDK8. I believe all prior >>> testing was on JDK7. >>> --Chris Nauroth >>> From: Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:18 PM >>> To: Chris Nauroth <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha candidate 1 >>> >>> Yeah, I started with an Ubuntu vm, so it's Linux. I haven't tested the RC >>> on windows yet. >>> >>> -FlavioFrom:Chris Nauroth >>> Sent:?5/?21/?2015 6:46 PM >>> To:[email protected] <http://zookeeper.apache.org/>;Flavio Junqueira >>> Subject:Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha candidate 1 >>> >>> If I understand correctly, you're seeing test failures specifically on >>> Windows (not Linux) after ZOOKEEPER-2183. Is that right? >>> >>> Tests have been stable in Linux Jenkins and dev environments after that >>> patch, but perhaps there is another issue specific to Windows. I'll take >>> a look on Windows. It might also be worthwhile to detect Windows and set >>> test.junit.threads to 1 automatically in build.xml as a stop-gap. >>> >>> --Chris Nauroth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/21/15, 9:05 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yep, that did it. >>>> -Flavio >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:23 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder if it's related to ZOOKEEPER-2183. Could you try setting >>>> test.junit.threads to 1 in build.xml? >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Flavio Junqueira >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I'm not being able to get a clean build for the RC. I'm running it on >>>>> an azure vm with ubuntu and oracle jdk8. The java tests failing vary. At >>>>> this point, I just wanted to check if I'm the only one seeing failures. >>>>> -Flavio >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:25 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is the second release candidate for 3.5.1-alpha. This candidate >>>>> fixes some issues found in the first candidate, including >>>>> ZOOKEEPER-2171. The full release notes is >>>>> available at: >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=1231080 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=1231080> >>>>> 1 >>>>> &version=12326786 >>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote by May 29th 2015, 23:59 UTC+0. *** >>>>> >>>>> Source files: >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~michim/zookeeper-3.5.1-alpha-candidate-1/ >>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~michim/zookeeper-3.5.1-alpha-candidate-1/> >>>>> >>>>> Maven staging repo: >>>>> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zookeepe >>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zookeepe> >>>>> r >>>>> /zookeeper/3.5.1-alpha/ >>>>> >>>>> The tag to be voted upon: >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.5.1-rc1/ >>>>> <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.5.1-rc1/> >>>>> >>>>> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS >>>>> <http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS> >>>>> >>>>> Should we release this candidate? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
