This is odd, it's failing in the c tests but for a weird reason: in: https://builds.apache.org/hudson/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/247/artifact/trunk/build/tmp/zk.log
it says: /grid/0/hudson/hudson-slave/workspace/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/trunk/src/c/tests/zkServer.sh: line 115: java: command not found I'll ping the hudson admins and see if this is a known issue (also hudson is very slow today for some reason). Once that's addressed we should be good to go. Patrick On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Ketan Gangatirkar <[email protected]> wrote: > Got the patch formatted right and applying successfully, now I'll see > if I can figure out the unit test failure. > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Ketan, the patch is failing to apply >> https://builds.apache.org/hudson/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/246//console >> >> Looks like you used git, I usually do something like: >> git diff rev1..rev2 --no-prefix > ZOOKEEPER-784.patch >> can you give it another try? >> >> Patrick >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Ketan Gangatirkar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I have updated Sergey's patch to: >>> >>> * apply to current trunk >>> * incorporate one trivial output change he made to StatCommand in >>> NettyServerCnxn.java >>> * change log4j references to slf4j >>> >>> I have successfully run ant releaseaudit on the result. The updated >>> patch is now attached to the issue: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-784 >>> >>> I do *not* make any claim to have understood the contents of this >>> patch; all I did was synch everything and fix the obvious log4j/slf4j >>> change. Now what? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The core tests failed on last hudson, I just kicked off a patch build, >>>> seems recent changes (logging?) have caused the patch to stop >>>> applying: >>>> https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/238/console >>>> >>>> Ketan would you like to try updating the patch and resubmit? >>>> >>>> Patrick >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Ketan Gangatirkar <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Thanks, Mahadev. I had seen ZOOKEEPER-892 but not ZOOKEEPER-784. The >>>>> latter may be what we need. >>>>> >>>>> I read the comments attached to that issue. The most recent comment >>>>> was a Hudson CI message indicating that the tests against the patch >>>>> failed. I was not able to find out more as it appears that the >>>>> configuration of the Apache Hudson has changed. It appears that the >>>>> patch was approved but not merged into trunk, and it's now in limbo. >>>>> What is necessary to get that feature into the next release? I may be >>>>> able to assist, depending on what's involved. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Mahadev Konar <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Ketan, >>>>>> You are correct that observers need connection to quorum as well. >>>>>> There have been quite a few discussions on multi colo replication and >>>>>> read only mode of ZooKeeper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are the jiras for those: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-784 >>>>>> and >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-892 >>>>>> >>>>>> These have been mostly targeted at exactly a use case like yours. >>>>>> Please take a look and them and feel free to contribute/comment on the >>>>>> jiras. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> mahadev >>>>>> @mahadevkonar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Ketan Gangatirkar <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi. We're considering ZooKeeper for coordinating operations across >>>>>>> multiple data centers. These data centers will occasionally be >>>>>>> disconnected. We were planning on using observers in remote data >>>>>>> centers. Our applications can survive being unable to *write* to >>>>>>> ZooKeeper, but they do need to be able to read from it, even if the >>>>>>> data were stale. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On further examination, it looks like observers must always be >>>>>>> connected to the quorum to function at all. Is this correct? Does >>>>>>> anyone have suggestions for how to work around this problem? The >>>>>>> first thing that comes to mind is duplicating the required data in >>>>>>> some other local data store and falling back on that when the DC >>>>>>> becomes disconnected. I imagine the disadvantages of that are obvious >>>>>>> to everyone. I hope someone can share some great idea that allows me >>>>>>> to avoid that miserable fate. Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ketan Gangatirkar >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ketan Gangatirkar >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Perishable Developer >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ketan Gangatirkar >>> [email protected] >>> Perishable Developer >>> >> > > > > -- > Ketan Gangatirkar > [email protected] > Perishable Developer >
