On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:03 PM Pranith Kumar Karampuri
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:19 PM Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
>> New addition - tests/basic/volume.t - failed twice atleast with shd core.
>>
>> One such ref -
>> https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/2058/console
>>
>
> I
On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
> 1) master branch health checks (weekly, till branching)
> - Expect every Monday a status update on various tests runs
As we have quite a few jobs failing and quite a few tests failing, to
enable tracking this better I have created the sheet as i
On Tue 31 Jul, 2018, 10:17 PM Atin Mukherjee, wrote:
> I just went through the nightly regression report of brick mux runs and
> here's what I can summarize.
>
>
> =
Have attached in the Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611635
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, 22:21 Raghavendra Gowdappa, wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
> khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I am facing different issue in softserve machines. The fuse
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I am facing different issue in softserve machines. The fuse mount itself
> is failing.
> I tried day before yesterday to debug geo-rep failures. I discussed with
> Raghu,
> but could not root cause it.
>
On 08/01/2018 11:10 PM, Nigel Babu wrote:
> Hi Shyam,
>
> Amar and I sat down to debug this failure[1] this morning. There was a
> bit of fun looking at the logs. It looked like the test restarted
> itself. The first log entry is at 16:20:03. This test has a timeout of
> 400 seconds which is aroun
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:19 PM Atin Mukherjee wrote:
> New addition - tests/basic/volume.t - failed twice atleast with shd core.
>
> One such ref -
> https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/2058/console
>
I will take a look.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:28 PM Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay
Raised the infra bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611635
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <
sankarshan.mukhopadh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar
> wrote:
> > I am facing different issue in softserve machi
New addition - tests/basic/volume.t - failed twice atleast with shd core.
One such ref - https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/2058/console
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:28 PM Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <
sankarshan.mukhopadh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Kotresh Hir
GlusterFS Coverity covscan results for the master branch are available from
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2018-08-02-47cbe34d/
Coverity covscan results for other active branches are also available at
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gl
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar
wrote:
> I am facing different issue in softserve machines. The fuse mount itself is
> failing.
> I tried day before yesterday to debug geo-rep failures. I discussed with
> Raghu,
> but could not root cause it. So none of the tests were
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Atin Mukherjee > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:37 PM Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
>> khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:4
I am facing different issue in softserve machines. The fuse mount itself is
failing.
I tried day before yesterday to debug geo-rep failures. I discussed with
Raghu,
but could not root cause it. So none of the tests were passing. It happened
on
both machine instances I tried.
--
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Rafi Kavungal Chundattu Parambil <
rkavu...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Yes, I think we can mark the test as bad for now. We found two issues that
> cause the failures.
>
> One issue is with the usage of anonymous fd from a fuse mount. posix acl
> which sits on the brick g
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:12 PM Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Don't know, something to do with perf xlators I suppose. It's not
> repdroduced on my local system with brick-mux enabled as well. But it's
> happening on Xavis' system.
>
> Xavi,
> Could you try with the p
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Atin Mukherjee
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:37 PM Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
> khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Xavi Hernandez
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM Atin Mukherjee
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:37 PM Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Xavi Hernandez
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM Atin Mukherjee
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:11 PM Atin Mukherjee
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Amar Tumballi wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
> khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Xavi Hernandez
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM Atin Mukherjee
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Xavi Hernandez
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM Atin Mukherjee
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:11 PM Atin Mukherjee
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Xavi Hernandez
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:11 PM Atin Mukherjee
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just went through the nightly regression report of brick mux runs and
>>> here's what I can summarize.
>>>
>
Yes, I think we can mark the test as bad for now. We found two issues that
cause the failures.
One issue is with the usage of anonymous fd from a fuse mount. posix acl which
sits on the brick graph does the authentication check during open. But with
anonymous FD's we may not have an explicit op
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:14 AM Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:11 PM Atin Mukherjee
> wrote:
>
>> I just went through the nightly regression report of brick mux runs and
>> here's what I can summarize.
>>
>>
>> ==
I've filed a bug to track this failure:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611532
As a stop gap measure I propose to mark the test as Bad to unblock patches
[1][2]. Are maintainers of snapshot in agreement with this?
regards,
Raghavendra
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Raghavendra Go
> That is fine with me. It is prepared for GlusterFS 5, so nothing needs
> to be done for that. Only for 4.1 and 3.12 FreeBSD needs to be disabled
> from the smoke job(s).
>
> I could not find the repo that contains the smoke job, otherwise I would
> have tried to send a PR.
>
> Niels
>
For future
24 matches
Mail list logo
