No, not after the vote closes. I was trying to say that the concerns you
expressed might have had greatest impact if they were expressed with a -1
while the vote was open.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:40 AM, William Slacum
Ah, that's a thought to think about. The conclusion I came was made
specifically because the vote had ended, so idk if it would've helped. Of
course, actually participating on my end would've been the best course of
action.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
Welp, after 8 hrs of memtest86+ with no errors, followed by 4B CI
(~11hrs) with 2 tservers + random manual `kill -9`'ing (same
characteristics as the first run), I just had a clean verify.
REFERENCED=4034576211
UNREFERENCED=1000161
I did update to a newer version of 2.6.0-SNAPSHOT and updated
I haven't had an opportunity to try it again since my +1, but prior to that
it has been consistently failing.
- I tried extending the timeout on the test, but it would still time out.
- I see the behavior on Mac OS X and under CentOS. (I wonder if it's a JVM
thing?)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:06
I'm seeing the behavior under Max OS X and Fedora 19 and they have been
consistently failing for me. I'm thinking ACCUMULO-3073. Since others are
able to get it to pass, I did not think it should fail the vote solely on
that but I do think it needs attention, quickly.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at
Please make a ticket for it and supply the MAC directories for the test
and the failsafe output.
It doesn't fail for me. It's possible that there is some edge case that
you and Bill are hitting that I'm not.
Corey Nolet wrote:
I'm seeing the behavior under Max OS X and Fedora 19 and they
I'm a little concerned we had two +1's that mention failures. The one time
when we're supposed to have a clean run through, we have 50% of the
participators noticing failure. It doesn't instill much confidence in me.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Please
I ran 24 hr of random walk against 1.6.1. I saw ACCUMULO-3169,
ACCUMULO-3170, and ACCUMULO-3171. I feel like these are not new in 1.6.1,
but have not investigated in depth yet.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:
Devs,
Please consider the following
That seems like a reason to vote -1 (and perhaps to encourage others to do
so also). I'm not sure this can be helped so long as people have different
criteria for their vote, though. If we can fix those issues, I'm ready to
vote on a 1.6.2 :)
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
Christopher, are you referring to Keith's last comment or Bill Slacum's?
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
That seems like a reason to vote -1 (and perhaps to encourage others to do
so also). I'm not sure this can be helped so long as people have different
Rescinding my -1 vote. Josh helped me figure this one out on IRC. There
used to be a tag named 1.6.1-rc1. That no longer exists at apache repo,
now there is a branch called 1.6.1-rc. I had both the old tag and the new
branch, git was taking the tag. git fetch --prune did not remove the tag,
I
Accumulo server logs are ~118M. The CI logs are tiny. Hadoop logs I have
are around 126M (although probably relevant bits are much smaller).
Sadly, I didn't run with archived WALs, so I'm not sure how useful the
server logs are on their own.
Sean Busbey wrote:
Josh, how big are all the
+1
I did a little more poking at 1.6.1 and it looks good. Thanks Corey and
Josh for putting these releases together.
Sigs and hashes for bin.tar.gz and src.tar.gz look good
Successfully ran mutslam[1] against 1.6.1 rc1, using staging repo.
Ci w/ Agitation verify ran successfully. Env hadoop
Bill,
I've been having that same IT issue and said the same thing It's not
happening to others. I lifted the timeout completely and it never finished.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Mike Drob mad...@cloudera.com wrote:
Any chance the IRC chats can make it only the ML for posterity?
Mike
(which needs to be signed)
It is signed... I forgot I have to add trust:
$ gpg --update-trustdb
Thanks Corey!
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Eric Newton eric.new...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Verified signature (which needs to be signed)
Verified ingest performance (on a single node)
+1
* Verified checksums+sigs
* Build from source tarball and ran all unit+functional tests against
Apache Hadoop 2.5.1 and 2.6.0-SNAPSHOT
* Ingested 2B records w/ CI + clean verify with single tserver (Apache
Hadoop 2.6.0-SNAPSHOT + Apache ZooKeeper 3.4.5)
* Ingested ~2.5B records w/ CI with 2
I started running CI w/ agitation on 20 EC2 nodes against 1.6.1 RC1
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:
Devs,
Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.1
Branch: 1.6.1-rc1
SHA1: 88c5473b3b49d797d3dabebd12fe517e9b248ba2
Staging
Corey, I don't see the branch. Did you forget to push?
On 9/19/14, 10:49 PM, Corey Nolet wrote:
Devs,
Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.1
Branch: 1.6.1-rc1
SHA1: 88c5473b3b49d797d3dabebd12fe517e9b248ba2
Staging Repository:
This appears to have been a snafu (related to the push-screwup). I'll
try to restore if I have the branch locally, but you might have to
re-push your branch, Corey (or anyone else who has the SHA1 listed in
his original VOTE email).
On 9/22/14, 1:26 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
Corey, I don't see
19 matches
Mail list logo
