On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Poornima Gurusiddaiah
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:30 AM Amar Tumballi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Nithya Balachandran
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We discussed reducing the number of volumes in the maintainers'
>>> meeting.Should we still go
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:30 AM Amar Tumballi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Nithya Balachandran
> wrote:
>
>> We discussed reducing the number of volumes in the maintainers'
>> meeting.Should we still go ahead and do that?
>>
>>
>>
> It would still be a good exercise, IMO. Reducing
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Nithya Balachandran
wrote:
> We discussed reducing the number of volumes in the maintainers'
> meeting.Should we still go ahead and do that?
>
>
>
It would still be a good exercise, IMO. Reducing it to 50-60 volumes from
120 now.
> On 9 July 2018 at 15:45, Xavi
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Nithya Balachandran
wrote:
> We discussed reducing the number of volumes in the maintainers'
> meeting.Should we still go ahead and do that?
>
I m not sure about exactly what was discussed. But reducing the number of
volumes may defeat the purpose of the test, as
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 5:41 PM Nithya Balachandran
wrote:
> We discussed reducing the number of volumes in the maintainers'
> meeting.Should we still go ahead and do that?
>
Do we know how much will it save us? There is value in some moderate number
of volumes (especially if we can ensure they
We discussed reducing the number of volumes in the maintainers'
meeting.Should we still go ahead and do that?
On 9 July 2018 at 15:45, Xavi Hernandez wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM Karthik Subrahmanya
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Deepshikha,
>>
>> Are you looking into this failure? I can still
Thanks for the patch Xavi :)
Regards,
Karthik
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:45 PM Xavi Hernandez wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM Karthik Subrahmanya
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Deepshikha,
>>
>> Are you looking into this failure? I can still see this happening for all
>> the regression runs.
>>
>
>
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM Karthik Subrahmanya
wrote:
> Hi Deepshikha,
>
> Are you looking into this failure? I can still see this happening for all
> the regression runs.
>
I've executed the failing script on my laptop and all tests finish
relatively fast. What seems to take time is the
Hi Deepshikha,
Are you looking into this failure? I can still see this happening for all
the regression runs.
Thanks & Regards,
Karthik
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:18 AM Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
> https://build.gluster.org/job/regression-test-with-multiplex/794/display/redirect
> has the same
https://build.gluster.org/job/regression-test-with-multiplex/794/display/redirect
has the same test failing. Is the reason of the failure different given
this is on jenkins?
On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 19:12, Deepshikha Khandelwal
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The issue[1] has been resolved. Now the
Hi folks,
The issue[1] has been resolved. Now the softserve instance will be
having 2GB RAM i.e. same as that of the Jenkins builder's sizing
configurations.
[1] https://github.com/gluster/softserve/issues/40
Thanks,
Deepshikha Khandelwal
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Karthik Subrahmanya
The same test case is failing for my patch as well [1]. I requested for a
regression system and tried to reproduce it.
>From my analysis, the brick process (mutiplexed) is consuming a lot of
memory, and is being OOM killed. The regression has 1GB ram and the process
is consuming more than 1GB. 1GB
On Fri 6 Jul, 2018, 5:18 PM Deepshikha Khandelwal,
wrote:
> Hi Poornima/Karthik,
>
> We've looked into the memory error that this softserve instance have
> showed up. These machine instances have 1GB RAM which is not in the
> case with the Jenkins builder. It's 2GB RAM there.
>
> We've created
Hi Poornima/Karthik,
We've looked into the memory error that this softserve instance have
showed up. These machine instances have 1GB RAM which is not in the
case with the Jenkins builder. It's 2GB RAM there.
We've created the issue [1] and will solve it sooner.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks Poornima for the analysis.
Can someone work on fixing this please?
~Karthik
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:17 PM Poornima Gurusiddaiah
wrote:
> The same test case is failing for my patch as well [1]. I requested for a
> regression system and tried to reproduce it.
> From my analysis, the
15 matches
Mail list logo
