Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-13 Thread Christopher
facilitate meeting these two somewhat > conflicting goals, +1 from me, and of course, whatever is the will of the > group. > > > > Ed Coleman > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 5

Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-13 Thread Josh Elser
he.org] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 5:49 PM To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Subject: Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2 Okay Ed, glad to know I'm not the only one, but also glad to know that they all do pass sometimes. It looks like the vote thread got enough +1s to p

RE: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-13 Thread Ed Coleman
March 13, 2017 5:49 PM To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Subject: Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2 Okay Ed, glad to know I'm not the only one, but also glad to know that they all do pass sometimes. It looks like the vote thread got enough +1s to pass (if you're ready

Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-13 Thread Christopher
Okay Ed, glad to know I'm not the only one, but also glad to know that they all do pass sometimes. It looks like the vote thread got enough +1s to pass (if you're ready to call it), and we can investigate these test failures further on that ticket Josh created, or any others which might be

Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-11 Thread Christopher
I didn't say I had a better way. I explained what I saw, and I solicited feedback from the community. I merely hinted at a *possible* better way, but I wanted to see what the community thought. I'm just trying to discuss it. If you don't want to engage with the discussion, simply don't... but

Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-11 Thread Josh Elser
This is a do-ocracy. Please just change the test if you believe to have a better way to test what it is trying to test. On Mar 11, 2017 18:43, "Christopher" wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 5:15 PM Josh Elser wrote: > > > Christopher, > > > > When I

Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-11 Thread Christopher
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 5:15 PM Josh Elser wrote: > Christopher, > > When I wrote that test, there were issues with the minimum functioning > renewal period as provided by the embedded KDC from Kerby. That is why > this test runs for so long -- anything shorter failed. > >

Re: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-11 Thread Josh Elser
Christopher, When I wrote that test, there were issues with the minimum functioning renewal period as provided by the embedded KDC from Kerby. That is why this test runs for so long -- anything shorter failed. This test passed at one point. I don't run tests on my own hardware to catch

RE: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-11 Thread Ed Coleman
Sorry, the formatting seemed to get lost. It was a pretty chart - had colors and everything. -Original Message- From: Ed Coleman [mailto:d...@etcoleman.com] Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:06 AM To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Subject: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo

Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2

2017-03-11 Thread Ed Coleman
I had commented on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4602 that I often have trouble with this and a few others. Not sure it makes me feel any better, but for me, this is not "new" to 1.7.3. I thought it could be due my virtual-box development environment, but I've tried running