You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> on 2014/04/03 19:58:38 UTC
Release testing for 1.6.0
Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
criteria.
--
Sean
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
It's ultimately up to the Release Manager if something should go into
1.6.0, but I don't see why we wouldn't include bug fixes that don't
invalidate tests.
IMHO, we have way too many development branches as is so in the case you're
describing I'd rather have things wait in 1.5 instead of adding another
branch.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bug fixes against 1.4.6 and 1.5.2 that aren't deemed as necessary for
> 1.6.0 will have no home in the 1.6 line if we don't have branches for 1.6.0
> and 1.6.1.
>
> These commits would sit in limbo in the 1.5 branch until 1.6.0 is released
> and we make 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release steps. That's also an
> option.
>
> If people want to keep putting minor bug fixes into 1.6.0, that's fine
> too. I just don't want to keep throwing in changes if we're trying to get
> it out of the door.
>
>
> On 4/4/14, 12:22 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>> What kind of development are you worried about stalling?
>>
>> Ideally, bug fixes shouldn't involve such a severe change that we have to
>> redo the long running tests. I would think that if such a fix did happen
>> it
>> would be for a problem severe enough to warrant delaying the release.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we're moving into testing only and not putting more bugfixes into
>>> 1.6.0, we should really get the branches in line so that it doesn't stall
>>> development (no place to merge things).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>>
>>> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
>>>> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
>>>> workers
>>>> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>>>>
>>>> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
>>>> release
>>>> criteria.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
--
Sean
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Bug fixes against 1.4.6 and 1.5.2 that aren't deemed as necessary for
1.6.0 will have no home in the 1.6 line if we don't have branches for
1.6.0 and 1.6.1.
These commits would sit in limbo in the 1.5 branch until 1.6.0 is
released and we make 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release steps. That's
also an option.
If people want to keep putting minor bug fixes into 1.6.0, that's fine
too. I just don't want to keep throwing in changes if we're trying to
get it out of the door.
On 4/4/14, 12:22 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> What kind of development are you worried about stalling?
>
> Ideally, bug fixes shouldn't involve such a severe change that we have to
> redo the long running tests. I would think that if such a fix did happen it
> would be for a problem severe enough to warrant delaying the release.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If we're moving into testing only and not putting more bugfixes into
>> 1.6.0, we should really get the branches in line so that it doesn't stall
>> development (no place to merge things).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>
>>> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
>>> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
>>> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>>>
>>> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
>>> criteria.
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
What kind of development are you worried about stalling?
Ideally, bug fixes shouldn't involve such a severe change that we have to
redo the long running tests. I would think that if such a fix did happen it
would be for a problem severe enough to warrant delaying the release.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we're moving into testing only and not putting more bugfixes into
> 1.6.0, we should really get the branches in line so that it doesn't stall
> development (no place to merge things).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
>> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
>> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>>
>> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
>> criteria.
>>
>>
--
Sean
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
If we're moving into testing only and not putting more bugfixes into
1.6.0, we should really get the branches in line so that it doesn't
stall development (no place to merge things).
Thoughts?
On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>
> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
> criteria.
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
#2 is still going as of this morning, so I'm optimistic with less than 2
hours remaining that it will survive the 24 hours. However, I have nothing
going for #3.
Josh has -1'd rc1. If there is no #3 running I'd -1 it, only because we ran
out of testing time.
If no one else is running #3, I'd be happy to, after updating my cluster to
the very latest (I'm about 5 days behind). Assuming rc1 doesn't ship,
before testing I'd also like to commit ACCUMULO-2621 (about concurrent rw)
and somehow deal with ACCUMULO-2657 (about shard rw).
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
>
> I think we have outstanding:
>
> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
>
> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
>
> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
>
> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a #2
> in progress.
>
> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my cluster
> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time I
> still could go through recovery and verification.
>
> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> Concurrent
> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm rerunning
> > to get more information.
> >
> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against 479a36bd)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > >
> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
> Ingest
> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
> > workers
> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> > >>
> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
> > release
> > >> criteria.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
> I just started LongClean rw with agitation. (I only use one walker, unlike
> Eric who apparently uses many.)
>
If running on a single node, and its beefy enough, you can spin up multiple
walkers on that node.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm running LongClean RW without aggitation.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Eric -
> > >
> > > Are you running with or without agitation?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm running RW with ShortClean, and I have reported a number of
> issues
> > > > (ACCUMULO-2655). They may be issues with my test environment, or the
> > > > mechanism used to tear down the tests after they timeout. I'm still
> > > > investigating.
> > > >
> > > > -Eric
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has
> > > patches
> > > > > from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0?
> As
> > > is,
> > > > >> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think we have outstanding:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H.
> > has a
> > > > #2
> > > > >> in progress.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my
> > > > cluster
> > > > >> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some
> > > ingestion
> > > > >> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in
> > > time
> > > > I
> > > > >> still could go through recovery and verification.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and
> #3?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> > > > >> Concurrent
> > > > >> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
> > > > rerunning
> > > > >> > to get more information.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> > > > >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> > > > >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <
> josh.elser@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
> > > > 479a36bd)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour
> > Continuous
> > > > >> Ingest
> > > > >> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes
> > and
> > > 5
> > > > >> > workers
> > > > >> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working
> through
> > > the
> > > > >> > release
> > > > >> > >> criteria.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> > // 443.686.9283
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Sean
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
I just started LongClean rw with agitation. (I only use one walker, unlike
Eric who apparently uses many.)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm running LongClean RW without aggitation.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric -
> >
> > Are you running with or without agitation?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm running RW with ShortClean, and I have reported a number of issues
> > > (ACCUMULO-2655). They may be issues with my test environment, or the
> > > mechanism used to tear down the tests after they timeout. I'm still
> > > investigating.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has
> > patches
> > > > from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As
> > is,
> > > >> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think we have outstanding:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
> > > >>
> > > >> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
> > > >>
> > > >> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H.
> has a
> > > #2
> > > >> in progress.
> > > >>
> > > >> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my
> > > cluster
> > > >> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some
> > ingestion
> > > >> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in
> > time
> > > I
> > > >> still could go through recovery and verification.
> > > >>
> > > >> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> > > >> Concurrent
> > > >> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
> > > rerunning
> > > >> > to get more information.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> > > >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> > > >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
> > > 479a36bd)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour
> Continuous
> > > >> Ingest
> > > >> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes
> and
> > 5
> > > >> > workers
> > > >> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through
> > the
> > > >> > release
> > > >> > >> criteria.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > // Bill Havanki
> > > >> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> > // 443.686.9283
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Sean
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>.
I'm running LongClean RW without aggitation.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Eric -
>
> Are you running with or without agitation?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm running RW with ShortClean, and I have reported a number of issues
> > (ACCUMULO-2655). They may be issues with my test environment, or the
> > mechanism used to tear down the tests after they timeout. I'm still
> > investigating.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> > > I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has
> patches
> > > from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As
> is,
> > >> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
> > >>
> > >> I think we have outstanding:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
> > >>
> > >> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
> > >>
> > >> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
> > >>
> > >> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a
> > #2
> > >> in progress.
> > >>
> > >> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my
> > cluster
> > >> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some
> ingestion
> > >> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in
> time
> > I
> > >> still could go through recovery and verification.
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> > >> Concurrent
> > >> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
> > rerunning
> > >> > to get more information.
> > >> >
> > >> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> > >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> > >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
> > 479a36bd)
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
> > >> Ingest
> > >> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and
> 5
> > >> > workers
> > >> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through
> the
> > >> > release
> > >> > >> criteria.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > // Bill Havanki
> > >> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> > // 443.686.9283
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sean
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
Eric -
Are you running with or without agitation?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm running RW with ShortClean, and I have reported a number of issues
> (ACCUMULO-2655). They may be issues with my test environment, or the
> mechanism used to tear down the tests after they timeout. I'm still
> investigating.
>
> -Eric
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> > I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has patches
> > from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
> >> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
> >>
> >> I think we have outstanding:
> >>
> >> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
> >>
> >> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
> >>
> >> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
> >>
> >> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a
> #2
> >> in progress.
> >>
> >> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my
> cluster
> >> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
> >> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time
> I
> >> still could go through recovery and verification.
> >>
> >> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> >> Concurrent
> >> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
> rerunning
> >> > to get more information.
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
> 479a36bd)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
> >> Ingest
> >> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
> >> > workers
> >> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
> >> > release
> >> > >> criteria.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > // Bill Havanki
> >> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> > // 443.686.9283
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >>
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
My run of LongClean randomwalk just passed the 24-hour mark.
commit 63ca9c9 with patches for ACCUMULO-2621
7-node cluster on CDH 4.5 (Hadoop 2.0.0+CDH4.5.0), 2 masters, 5 tservers, 3
ZKs
CentOS 6.4 64-bit
I'll start to update and re-tool for an agitation run.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm running RW with ShortClean, and I have reported a number of issues
> (ACCUMULO-2655). They may be issues with my test environment, or the
> mechanism used to tear down the tests after they timeout. I'm still
> investigating.
>
> -Eric
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> > I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has patches
> > from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
> >> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
> >>
> >> I think we have outstanding:
> >>
> >> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
> >>
> >> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
> >>
> >> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
> >>
> >> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a
> #2
> >> in progress.
> >>
> >> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my
> cluster
> >> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
> >> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time
> I
> >> still could go through recovery and verification.
> >>
> >> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> >> Concurrent
> >> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
> rerunning
> >> > to get more information.
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
> 479a36bd)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
> >> Ingest
> >> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
> >> > workers
> >> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
> >> > release
> >> > >> criteria.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > // Bill Havanki
> >> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> > // 443.686.9283
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >>
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>.
I'm running RW with ShortClean, and I have reported a number of issues
(ACCUMULO-2655). They may be issues with my test environment, or the
mechanism used to tear down the tests after they timeout. I'm still
investigating.
-Eric
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has patches
> from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
>> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
>>
>> I think we have outstanding:
>>
>> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
>>
>> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
>>
>> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
>>
>> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a #2
>> in progress.
>>
>> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my cluster
>> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
>> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time I
>> still could go through recovery and verification.
>>
>> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
>> Concurrent
>> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm rerunning
>> > to get more information.
>> >
>> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against 479a36bd)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
>> Ingest
>> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
>> > workers
>> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>> > >>
>> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
>> > release
>> > >> criteria.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > // Bill Havanki
>> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> > // 443.686.9283
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
My run of LongClean randomwalk with agitation just passed the 24-hour mark.
commit d77cd3f
7-node cluster on CDH 4.5 (Hadoop 2.0.0+CDH4.5.0), 2 masters, 5 tservers, 3
ZKs
CentOS 6.4 64-bit
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has patches
> > from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
> >
>
> I just completed a successful verify of this run. I noticed ACCUMULO-2677
> during this run.
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
> >> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
> >>
> >> I think we have outstanding:
> >>
> >> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
> >>
> >> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
> >>
> >> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
> >>
> >> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a
> #2
> >> in progress.
> >>
> >> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my
> cluster
> >> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
> >> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time
> I
> >> still could go through recovery and verification.
> >>
> >> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> >> Concurrent
> >> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
> >> rerunning
> >> > to get more information.
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
> >> 479a36bd)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
> >> Ingest
> >> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
> >> > workers
> >> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
> >> > release
> >> > >> criteria.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > // Bill Havanki
> >> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> > // 443.686.9283
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has patches
> from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
>
I just completed a successful verify of this run. I noticed ACCUMULO-2677
during this run.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
>> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
>>
>> I think we have outstanding:
>>
>> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
>>
>> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
>>
>> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
>>
>> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a #2
>> in progress.
>>
>> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my cluster
>> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
>> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time I
>> still could go through recovery and verification.
>>
>> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
>> Concurrent
>> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm
>> rerunning
>> > to get more information.
>> >
>> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against
>> 479a36bd)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
>> Ingest
>> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
>> > workers
>> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>> > >>
>> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
>> > release
>> > >> criteria.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > // Bill Havanki
>> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> > // 443.686.9283
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>>
>
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
I'm running a 24hr CI run w/o agitation on hour 14. This run has patches
from ACCUMULO-2668, ACCUMULO-2667, and ACCUMULO-2670.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
> there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
>
> I think we have outstanding:
>
> 1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
>
> 2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
>
> 3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
>
> I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a #2
> in progress.
>
> I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my cluster
> had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
> and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time I
> still could go through recovery and verification.
>
> Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the
> Concurrent
> > rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm rerunning
> > to get more information.
> >
> > I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against 479a36bd)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > >
> > >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous
> Ingest
> > >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
> > workers
> > >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> > >>
> > >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
> > release
> > >> criteria.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
Can we circle back on where we are wrt required testing on 1.6.0? As is,
there's < 24hr remaining on the RC1 vote.
I think we have outstanding:
1) Continuous Ingest run 24 hrs w/o agitation, verified
2) RandomWalk with LongClean for 24hrs
3) RandomWalk with LongClean and agitation for 24hrs
I believe Mike D. finished the 72hr CI w/o agitation and Bill H. has a #2
in progress.
I had #1 queued for this previous weekend on BigTop 0.7.0, but my cluster
had NIC issues under stress and blew up. It did get to do some ingestion
and it did make attempts for hte full 24hr. so if it gets fixed in time I
still could go through recovery and verification.
Does anyone else have tests in progress that will fulfill #1 and #3?
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
> I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the Concurrent
> rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm rerunning
> to get more information.
>
> I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against 479a36bd)
> >
> >
> > On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >
> >> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
> >> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5
> workers
> >> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
> >>
> >> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the
> release
> >> criteria.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>
--
Sean
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
I have been working randomwalk. I got through my issue with the Concurrent
rw test [1]. I am now seeing a problem with Shard [2] which I'm rerunning
to get more information.
I haven't seen the particular issues Eric encountered [3].
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2621
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2657
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2655
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against 479a36bd)
>
>
> On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
>> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
>> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>>
>> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
>> criteria.
>>
>>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
I had a successful run of all UTs and ITs on Tuesday (against 479a36bd)
On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>
> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
> criteria.
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
We have successfully finished verifying a 72 hour Continuous Ingest Test
with agitation on this same configuration.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>wrote:
> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>
> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
> criteria.
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
Not on the release reqs, but something I did
I ran 24 hr of Random walk (w/o agitation) using Conditional.xml for
walkers. All walkers ran the entire time w/o hanging or erring.
20 EC2 nodes (17 walkers, DNs, tservers)
Hadoop 2.2.0
Zookeeper 3.4.5
Accumulo 1.6.0 RC2
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>wrote:
> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>
> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
> criteria.
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
Yep, CDH 4.5.0.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For context, against CDH4.5 I assume (same as the 1.4.5 testing)?
>
> I have it on my list to get a 1.6.0 harness up to do some testing, but I
> haven't outlined what all I want to accomplish yet.
>
>
> On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
>> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
>> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>>
>> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
>> criteria.
>>
>>
--
Sean Busbey
Software Engineer
Cloudera, Inc.
Phone: MAN-VS-BEARD
Re: Release testing for 1.6.0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
For context, against CDH4.5 I assume (same as the 1.4.5 testing)?
I have it on my list to get a 1.6.0 harness up to do some testing, but I
haven't outlined what all I want to accomplish yet.
On 4/3/14, 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Cloudera has finished successfully verifying a 24 hour Continuous Ingest
> Test with agitation on an HA configured cluster with 7 nodes and 5 workers
> against 1.6.0 as of commit 3a1b38.
>
> We'd like to coordinate with anyone else who's working through the release
> criteria.
>