You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bookkeeper.apache.org by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2015/03/17 23:04:06 UTC
RC for 4.3.1?
Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1? I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
-Flavio
RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>.
I'm watching the discussion. Could you please tell me anything to be required/done from my side. Thanks!
Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 March 2015 04:24
To: Flavio Junqueira
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs
> of CookieTest
>
> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> Host name: localhost
>
> while in the vm I get this:
>
> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>
> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>
> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> }
>
> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>
> -Flavio
>
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname
> are different.
>
> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
> would make the tests more deterministic.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sijie,
>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname
>> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are
>> failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R
>> <ra...@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
>> one test case failure.
>>
>> -Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
>> those tests for producing the new RC.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
>> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
>> 4.3.1?
>> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >
>> > -Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>.
Hi Flavio,
>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 milliseconds
I could see the following call can take some amount of time
Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do you have the logs available with you.
Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
To: Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 milliseconds
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs of CookieTest
>
> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> Host name: localhost
>
> while in the vm I get this:
>
> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>
> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>
> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> }
>
> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>
> -Flavio
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>>
>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>> Sijie,
>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>>
>> -Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >
>> > -Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
I am cutting 4.3.1 from branch 4.3. as we already cut 4.3.0, I'd think we
should release 4.3.1 from branch 4.3 rather than from master. otherwise, it
is a bit confused for maintaining. we could focus on 4.4 and move on from
4.3 after this.
btw, the last jira for 4.3.1:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-854 could anyone review it?
- Sijie
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> Are you going to cut from 4.3.1 from master or branch-4.3? IMO, since
> there's been no big feature nor breaking change, it should come from
> master (and branch-4.3 should be deleted until it is actually needed).
>
> -Ivan
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yes. I will cut the new RC candidate.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Sijie,
> >>
> >> BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is
> >> marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
> >>
> >> Shall we go ahead with the release ?
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Rakesh
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com]
> >> Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
> >> To: Rakesh R
> >> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
> >> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
> >>
> >> I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might
> not
> >> be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to
> increase
> >> rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail
> >> consistently.
> >>
> >> -Flavio
> >>
> >> > On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Flavio,
> >> >
> >> > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds
> >> timeout". That is too small value.
> >> > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test
> >> case again.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Rakesh
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Rakesh R
> >> > Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
> >> > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> >> > Cc: Sijie Guo
> >> > Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
> >> >
> >> > Hi Flavio,
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
> >> >>>>>>>> p
> >> >>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
> >> >>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
> >> >
> >> > I could see the following call can take some amount of time
> >> > Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
> >> >
> >> > I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the
> analysis.
> >> Do you have the logs available with you.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Rakesh
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> >> > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
> >> > To: Sijie Guo
> >> > Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
> >> >
> >> > I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an
> >> entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
> >> >
> >> > testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
> >> > ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
> >> > milliseconds
> >> >
> >> >> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I
> guess
> >> that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
> >> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >> >> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
> >> >> logs of CookieTest
> >> >>
> >> >> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> >> >> Host name: localhost
> >> >>
> >> >> while in the vm I get this:
> >> >>
> >> >> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> >> >> Host name: 10.0.0.4
> >> >>
> >> >> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
> >> >>
> >> >> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> >> >> hostAddress =
> inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> >> >> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Flavio
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <mailto:
> >> guosijie@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP
> and
> >> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname
> are
> >> different.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
> >> would make the tests more deterministic.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Sijie
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
> >> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Sijie,
> >> >>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the
> hostname
> >> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are
> failing
> >> seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
> >> >>> -Flavio
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <
> rakeshr@huawei.com
> >> <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
> >> one test case failure.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Rakesh
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
> >> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
> >> >>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
> >> >>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
> >> >>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to
> address
> >> those tests for producing the new RC.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Sijie
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
> >> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
> >> 4.3.1?
> >> >>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Flavio
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>.
Are you going to cut from 4.3.1 from master or branch-4.3? IMO, since
there's been no big feature nor breaking change, it should come from
master (and branch-4.3 should be deleted until it is actually needed).
-Ivan
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes. I will cut the new RC candidate.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Sijie,
>>
>> BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is
>> marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
>>
>> Shall we go ahead with the release ?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
>> To: Rakesh R
>> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not
>> be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase
>> rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail
>> consistently.
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>> > On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Flavio,
>> >
>> > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds
>> timeout". That is too small value.
>> > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test
>> case again.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Rakesh
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Rakesh R
>> > Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
>> > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
>> > Cc: Sijie Guo
>> > Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
>> >
>> > Hi Flavio,
>> >
>> >>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
>> >>>>>>>> p
>> >>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
>> >>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
>> >
>> > I could see the following call can take some amount of time
>> > Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
>> >
>> > I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis.
>> Do you have the logs available with you.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Rakesh
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
>> > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
>> > To: Sijie Guo
>> > Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>> >
>> > I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an
>> entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
>> >
>> > testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
>> > ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
>> > milliseconds
>> >
>> >> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess
>> that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
>> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
>> >> logs of CookieTest
>> >>
>> >> Host address: 127.0.0.1
>> >> Host name: localhost
>> >>
>> >> while in the vm I get this:
>> >>
>> >> Host address: 10.0.0.4
>> >> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>> >>
>> >> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>> >>
>> >> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
>> >> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
>> >> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>> >>
>> >> -Flavio
>> >>
>> >>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <mailto:
>> guosijie@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
>> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
>> different.
>> >>>
>> >>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
>> would make the tests more deterministic.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Sijie
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
>> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Sijie,
>> >>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname
>> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing
>> seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> >>> -Flavio
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com
>> <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
>> one test case failure.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Rakesh
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
>> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> >>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> >>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>> >>>
>> >>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
>> those tests for producing the new RC.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Sijie
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
>> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
>> 4.3.1?
>> >>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Flavio
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
yes. I will cut the new RC candidate.
- Sijie
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Sijie,
>
> BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is
> marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
>
> Shall we go ahead with the release ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Rakesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
> To: Rakesh R
> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not
> be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase
> rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail
> consistently.
>
> -Flavio
>
> > On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Flavio,
> >
> > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds
> timeout". That is too small value.
> > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test
> case again.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rakesh
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rakesh R
> > Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
> > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> > Cc: Sijie Guo
> > Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
> >
> > Hi Flavio,
> >
> >>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
> >>>>>>>> p
> >>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
> >>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
> >
> > I could see the following call can take some amount of time
> > Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
> >
> > I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis.
> Do you have the logs available with you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rakesh
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
> > To: Sijie Guo
> > Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
> >
> > I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an
> entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
> >
> > testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
> > ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
> > milliseconds
> >
> >> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess
> that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
> >> logs of CookieTest
> >>
> >> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> >> Host name: localhost
> >>
> >> while in the vm I get this:
> >>
> >> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> >> Host name: 10.0.0.4
> >>
> >> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
> >>
> >> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> >> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> >> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> >> }
> >>
> >> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
> >>
> >> -Flavio
> >>
> >>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <mailto:
> guosijie@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
> different.
> >>>
> >>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
> would make the tests more deterministic.
> >>>
> >>> - Sijie
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>>
> wrote:
> >>> Sijie,
> >>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname
> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing
> seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
> >>> -Flavio
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com
> <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
> one test case failure.
> >>>
> >>> -Rakesh
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
> >>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
> >>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
> >>>
> >>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
> those tests for producing the new RC.
> >>>
> >>> - Sijie
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
> 4.3.1?
> >>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Flavio
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
+1
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Sijie,
BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ?
Best Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
To: Rakesh R
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail consistently.
-Flavio
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
> I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds timeout". That is too small value.
> Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test case again.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh R
> Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Cc: Sijie Guo
> Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
>>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
>>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
>
> I could see the following call can take some amount of time
> Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
>
> I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do you have the logs available with you.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
> To: Sijie Guo
> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
>
> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
> ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
> milliseconds
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
>> logs of CookieTest
>>
>> Host address: 127.0.0.1
>> Host name: localhost
>>
>> while in the vm I get this:
>>
>> Host address: 10.0.0.4
>> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>>
>> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>>
>> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
>> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
>> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
>> }
>>
>> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>>>
>>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>> Sijie,
>>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>>>
>>> -Rakesh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>>
>>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>.
Hi Sijie,
BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ?
Best Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
To: Rakesh R
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail consistently.
-Flavio
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
> I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds timeout". That is too small value.
> Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test case again.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh R
> Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Cc: Sijie Guo
> Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
>>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
>>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
>
> I could see the following call can take some amount of time
> Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
>
> I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do you have the logs available with you.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
> To: Sijie Guo
> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
>
> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
> ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
> milliseconds
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
>> logs of CookieTest
>>
>> Host address: 127.0.0.1
>> Host name: localhost
>>
>> while in the vm I get this:
>>
>> Host address: 10.0.0.4
>> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>>
>> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>>
>> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
>> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
>> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
>> }
>>
>> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>>>
>>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>> Sijie,
>>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>>>
>>> -Rakesh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>>
>>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail consistently.
-Flavio
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
> I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds timeout". That is too small value.
> Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test case again.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh R
> Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Cc: Sijie Guo
> Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> Hi Flavio,
>
>>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.ap
>>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
>>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
>
> I could see the following call can take some amount of time Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
>
> I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do you have the logs available with you.
>
> Regards,
> Rakesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
> To: Sijie Guo
> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
>
> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 milliseconds
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs
>> of CookieTest
>>
>> Host address: 127.0.0.1
>> Host name: localhost
>>
>> while in the vm I get this:
>>
>> Host address: 10.0.0.4
>> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>>
>> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>>
>> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
>> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
>> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
>> }
>>
>> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>>>
>>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>> Sijie,
>>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>>>
>>> -Rakesh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>>
>>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>>>
>>> - Sijie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>.
Hi Flavio,
I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds timeout". That is too small value.
Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test case again.
Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Rakesh R
Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Cc: Sijie Guo
Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Hi Flavio,
>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.ap
>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds
I could see the following call can take some amount of time Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do you have the logs available with you.
Regards,
Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
To: Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 milliseconds
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs
> of CookieTest
>
> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> Host name: localhost
>
> while in the vm I get this:
>
> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>
> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>
> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> }
>
> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>
> -Flavio
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>>
>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>> Sijie,
>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>>
>> -Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >
>> > -Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 milliseconds
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs of CookieTest
>
> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> Host name: localhost
>
> while in the vm I get this:
>
> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>
> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>
> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> }
>
> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>
> -Flavio
>
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>>
>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>> Sijie,
>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>>
>> -Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
>> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >
>> > -Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that
might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs of
> CookieTest
>
> Host address: 127.0.0.1
> Host name: localhost
>
> while in the vm I get this:
>
> Host address: 10.0.0.4
> Host name: 10.0.0.4
>
> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
>
> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
> }
>
> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
>
> -Flavio
>
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
> different.
>
> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would
> make the tests more deterministic.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sijie,
>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname
>> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing
>> seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one
>> test case failure.
>>
>> -Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>>
>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
>> those tests for producing the new RC.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
>> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
>> 4.3.1?
>> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>> >
>> > -Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs of CookieTest
Host address: 127.0.0.1
Host name: localhost
while in the vm I get this:
Host address: 10.0.0.4
Host name: 10.0.0.4
"Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java:
if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress);
}
It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
-Flavio
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different.
>
> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid <ma...@yahoo.com.invalid>> wrote:
> Sijie,
> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
> -Flavio
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rakeshr@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
>
> -Rakesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <ma...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
> >
> > -Flavio
>
>
>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
different.
We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would
make the tests more deterministic.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sijie,
> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps
> to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem
> to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
> -Flavio
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one
> test case failure.
>
> -Rakesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
> those tests for producing the new RC.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
> 4.3.1?
> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
> >
> > -Flavio
>
>
>
>
>
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Sijie,
The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
-Flavio
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
-Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>
> -Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Included.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one
> test case failure.
>
> -Rakesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
>
> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
> those tests for producing the new RC.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
> 4.3.1?
> > I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
> >
> > -Flavio
>
RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Rakesh R <ra...@huawei.com>.
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure.
-Rakesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosijie@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>
> -Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those
tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
>
> -Flavio