Aaron Richton wrote:
test050 fails. Often.
https://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/~richton/test050failures.tar.gz contains 12
bad testrun directories. If it was an assert() or SEGV, I should have core
for a backtrace. I don't know if generating all of them ahead of time
would be considered useless spam. Ehh...then again, it's probably not
readily apparent from a testrun directory if it was a SEGV or not. I'll
see what I can put together; in the interim, if there's a particular run
that looks particularly interesting, let me know the timestamp (from the
directory name) and I can get that trace out.
I've only briefly looked at your files. I then built fresh on Solaris and am
seeing a variety of failures as well. In at least one case I'm seeing a valid
update being rejected because the incoming cookie seems to have been confused
with another one. This happens when a NEW_COOKIE message is received. I'll
note that sending NEW_COOKIE messages is a recent change (ITS#5972), and there
is no valid case for them to be occurring in test050. I.e., NEW_COOKIE should
be sent in a partial replication situation, where an entry changed in the
naming context but it's not within the consumer's scope of interest. In
test050, the consumer's scope of interest is the entire naming context. So
this at least gives me one area to look for a fix.
I'm also inclined to back out #5972 and its related patches (#5973, #6001) for
this release. We were looking for bug fixes and stability, and they've been
quite destabilizing.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
