I don't see a reason to -1 the release just because of the number of threads junit is using. I've been a bit distracted with other things, but I'm coming back to the release candidate now.
-Flavio > On 23 May 2015, at 22:09, Michi Mutsuzaki <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can go either way. Flavio, do you think we should set the default > test.junit.threads to 1 and create another release candidate? > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I haven't been able to repro this locally. Here are the details on my >> Ubuntu VM: >> >> uname -a >> Linux ubuntu 3.16.0-30-generic #40~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jan 15 17:43:14 >> UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >> >> java -version >> java version "1.8.0_45" >> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_45-b14) >> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.45-b02, mixed mode) >> >> ant -version >> Apache Ant(TM) version 1.9.4 compiled on April 29 2014 >> >> I'm getting 100% passing test runs with multiple concurrent JUnit processes, >> including the tests that you mentioned were failing in your environment. >> >> I don't have any immediate ideas for what to try next. Everything has been >> working well on Jenkins and multiple dev machines, so it seems like there is >> some subtle environmental difference in this VM that I didn't handle in the >> ZOOKEEPER-2183 patch. >> >> Is this problematic for the release candidate? If so, then I recommend >> doing a quick change to set the default test.junit.threads to 1 in >> build.xml. That would restore the old single-process testing behavior. We >> can change test-patch.sh to pass -Dtest.junit.threads=8 on the command line, >> so we'll still get speedy pre-commit runs on Jenkins where it is working >> well. We all can do the same when we run ant locally too. Let me know if >> this is important, and I can put together a patch quickly. >> >> Thanks! >> >> --Chris Nauroth >> >> From: Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:37 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 >> >> 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]<mailto:[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/ >> >> 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 >> 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/ >> >> Maven staging repo: >> >> 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/ >> >> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: >> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS >> >> Should we release this candidate? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
