Re: [Gluster-devel] tests and umount
On 06/18/2014 10:49 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: On 06/16/2014 09:08 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: On 06/16/2014 09:00 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all of them to umount -l. Let me know if you foresee any problems. I think I'd try "umount -f" first. Using -l too much can cause an accumulation of zombie mounts. When I'm hacking around on my own, I sometimes have to do "umount -f" twice but that's always sufficient. Cool, I will do some kind of EXPECT_WITHIN with umount -f may be 5 times just to be on the safer side. I submitted http://review.gluster.com/8104 for one of the tests as it is failing frequently. Will do the next round later. http://review.gluster.org/8117 fixes the rest. Pranith Pranith If no one has any objections I will send out a patch tomorrow for this. Pranith ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] tests and umount
On 18/06/2014, at 6:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > On 06/16/2014 09:08 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: >> >> On 06/16/2014 09:00 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all of them to umount -l. Let me know if you foresee any problems. >>> I think I'd try "umount -f" first. Using -l too much can cause an >>> accumulation of zombie mounts. When I'm hacking around on my own, I >>> sometimes have to do "umount -f" twice but that's always sufficient. >> Cool, I will do some kind of EXPECT_WITHIN with umount -f may be 5 times >> just to be on the safer side. > I submitted http://review.gluster.com/8104 for one of the tests as it is > failing frequently. Will do the next round later. Would either of you have time to 2nd review this: http://review.gluster.com/8104 It's for fixing the bug-859581.t spurious failure. You both had Gerrit CR's that failed yesterday due to this. ;) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to several petabytes, and handling thousands of clients. My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] tests and umount
On 06/16/2014 09:08 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: On 06/16/2014 09:00 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all of them to umount -l. Let me know if you foresee any problems. I think I'd try "umount -f" first. Using -l too much can cause an accumulation of zombie mounts. When I'm hacking around on my own, I sometimes have to do "umount -f" twice but that's always sufficient. Cool, I will do some kind of EXPECT_WITHIN with umount -f may be 5 times just to be on the safer side. I submitted http://review.gluster.com/8104 for one of the tests as it is failing frequently. Will do the next round later. Pranith If no one has any objections I will send out a patch tomorrow for this. Pranith ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] tests and umount
On 06/16/2014 09:00 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all of them to umount -l. Let me know if you foresee any problems. I think I'd try "umount -f" first. Using -l too much can cause an accumulation of zombie mounts. When I'm hacking around on my own, I sometimes have to do "umount -f" twice but that's always sufficient. Cool, I will do some kind of EXPECT_WITHIN with umount -f may be 5 times just to be on the safer side. If no one has any objections I will send out a patch tomorrow for this. Pranith ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] tests and umount
> I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail > sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all > of them to umount -l. > Let me know if you foresee any problems. I think I'd try "umount -f" first. Using -l too much can cause an accumulation of zombie mounts. When I'm hacking around on my own, I sometimes have to do "umount -f" twice but that's always sufficient. ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
[Gluster-devel] tests and umount
hi, I see that most of the tests are doing umount and these may fail sometimes because of EBUSY etc. I am wondering if we should change all of them to umount -l. Let me know if you foresee any problems. Pranith ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
