You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM> on 2008/04/01 15:14:43 UTC
Re: Showstoppers
Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM writes:
> Is there an existing bug in Derby which you consider to be a showstopper for
> 10.4? (Meaning that you will veto the release unless this bug gets fixed).
> If this bug is not being actively worked on, please flag it here ASAP,
> so that those looking for bugs to fix can consider it.
After 10.3 was released, we've had a high number of reports about what
seems to be corrupted databases.
In JIRA:
DERBY-2284
DERBY-2589
DERBY-3052
DERBY-3087
DERBY-3143
DERBY-3219
DERBY-3344
DERBY-3347
DERBY-3411
On derby-user:
http://www.nabble.com/ERROR-XSDG3%3A-Meta-data-for-Container...-----Is-this-database-corrupt--td13697398.html
http://www.nabble.com/ERROR-XSDG2%3A-Invalid-checksum-on-Page-Page%280%2CContainer%280%2C-1313%29%29-td16389697.html
On derby-dev:
http://www.nabble.com/Derby-crash-%28urgent%29-td16217446.html
I'm not sure this should block the release, but I can't say I am
completely comfortable with the situation. Does anyone have ideas on how
we can track down these bugs?
--
Knut Anders
Re: Showstoppers
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
> 4) It might be worthwhile for the community to focus on bug fixing for
> a couple months. That could include a concentrated effort to track
> down these corruptions.
>
+1
Re: Showstoppers
Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM>.
Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> writes:
Thanks for your input, Rick!
> 3) In general I wouldn't hold up the release of incremental
> improvements because some other issue hasn't been fixed. As far as I
> can tell, 10.4 delivers useful features and performance
> improvements. At first blush, it seems to me to be a better
> distribution than 10.3. I would hold up 10.4 only if we had a good
> reason to believe that 10.4 will make the corruption issues worse.
Agreed. There's nothing indicating that 10.4 is worse than 10.3 in this
respect, so it shouldn't block the release. I just wanted to raise the
issue since bugs that cause database corruption are probably the worst
bugs a database system can have.
> 4) It might be worthwhile for the community to focus on bug fixing for
> a couple months. That could include a concentrated effort to track
> down these corruptions.
+1, sounds like a good idea. In the lack of reproducible test cases I
guess we'll have to focus on code review. If we think the corruptions
are caused by multi-threading bugs, using techniques like adding calls
to sleep() strategic places in the code (see DERBY-3393) could perhaps
also help us smoke them out.
--
Knut Anders
Re: Showstoppers
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
> Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>> Is there an existing bug in Derby which you consider to be a showstopper for
>> 10.4? (Meaning that you will veto the release unless this bug gets fixed).
>> If this bug is not being actively worked on, please flag it here ASAP,
>> so that those looking for bugs to fix can consider it.
>>
>
> After 10.3 was released, we've had a high number of reports about what
> seems to be corrupted databases.
>
> In JIRA:
>
> DERBY-2284
> DERBY-2589
> DERBY-3052
> DERBY-3087
> DERBY-3143
> DERBY-3219
> DERBY-3344
> DERBY-3347
> DERBY-3411
>
> On derby-user:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/ERROR-XSDG3%3A-Meta-data-for-Container...-----Is-this-database-corrupt--td13697398.html
> http://www.nabble.com/ERROR-XSDG2%3A-Invalid-checksum-on-Page-Page%280%2CContainer%280%2C-1313%29%29-td16389697.html
>
> On derby-dev:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Derby-crash-%28urgent%29-td16217446.html
>
> I'm not sure this should block the release, but I can't say I am
> completely comfortable with the situation. Does anyone have ideas on how
> we can track down these bugs?
>
>
Hi Knut,
I don't have any bright ideas, just some comments:
1) It looks to me as though 2284 and 2589 are 10.2 issues. They are
marked as 10.3 issues but they seem to have been logged several months
before 10.3 was released.
2) I agree that these corruptions are disturbing. We may be seeing more
of them because the engine code is getting creakier. Alternatively, we
may be seeing more of them simply because Derby usage is ticking up.
Hard to say.
3) In general I wouldn't hold up the release of incremental improvements
because some other issue hasn't been fixed. As far as I can tell, 10.4
delivers useful features and performance improvements. At first blush,
it seems to me to be a better distribution than 10.3. I would hold up
10.4 only if we had a good reason to believe that 10.4 will make the
corruption issues worse.
4) It might be worthwhile for the community to focus on bug fixing for a
couple months. That could include a concentrated effort to track down
these corruptions.
Thanks for compiling this list of issues.
Regards,
-Rick