From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: Testing the next giant release Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:23:29 +0100 Message-ID: <54B3D8E1.8020907@dachary.org> References: <54AD3C8B.4030705@dachary.org> <54AE5066.2000102@dachary.org> <54AEABE8.9030605@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kBvJ8Qt8eXgplUOIlGIrTHibhhJB3QlUn" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:37328 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750991AbbALOXc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:23:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <54AEABE8.9030605@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yuri Weinstein Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --kBvJ8Qt8eXgplUOIlGIrTHibhhJB3QlUn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Yuri, I analyzed the errors from the rbd run at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-20= 15-01-08_10:36:47-rbd-giant-backports-testing-basic-vps/ and summarized m= y findings in the description of http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10501 It would be great if you could let me know if these look familiar. They a= ll seem to relate to something that's not from the backports, except for = http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10513 because it looks new. Cheers On 08/01/2015 17:10, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Tamil, >=20 > The test completed with a number of failures. I compared them with the = latest giant / rbd run (which is on the red hat private lab). The number = of failure is comparable (40 failed out of 102 january 6th 2015). However= the failures are mostly different and I'm not sure what to do next. >=20 > http://pulpito.ceph.redhat.com/teuthology-2015-01-06_02:00:01-rbd-giant= -distro-basic-magna/ shows >=20 > Command failed on magna094 with status 1: 'sudo yum install ceph-radosg= w-0.87 -y'=20 >=20 > (a number of times) >=20 > Command failed on magna065 with status 1: 'adjust-ulimits ceph-coverage= /home/ubuntu/cephtest/archive/coverage daemon-helper term qemu-system-x8= 6_64 -enable-kvm -nographic -m 4096 -drive file=3D/home/ubuntu/cephtest/q= emu/base.client.0.qcow2,format=3Dqcow2,if=3Dvirtio -cdrom /home/ubuntu/ce= phtest/qemu/client.0.iso -fsdev local,id=3Dlog,path=3D/home/ubuntu/cephte= st/archive/qemu/client.0,security_model=3Dnone -device virtio-9p-pci,fsde= v=3Dlog,mount_tag=3Dtest_log -drive file=3Drbd:rbd/client.0.0:id=3D0,form= at=3Draw,if=3Dvirtio,cache=3Dwritethrough -drive file=3Drbd:rbd/client.0.= 1:id=3D0,format=3Draw,if=3Dvirtio,cache=3Dwritethrough' >=20 > (a few times). >=20 > On 08/01/2015 10:39, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The giant-backports branch has been built by gitbuilders tonight >> >> http://gitbuilder.sepia.ceph.com/gitbuilder-ceph-deb-trusty-amd64-basi= c/#origin/giant-backports >> etc. >> >> and I scheduled a rbd suite with >> >> ./virtualenv/bin/teuthology-suite --teuthology-branch giant --suite rb= d --suite-branch giant --machine-type vps --distro ubuntu --email loic@da= chary.org --owner loic@dachary.org --ceph giant-backports >> >> which shows at >> >> http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-01-08_10:36:47-rbd-giant-backports-t= esting-basic-vps/ >> >> To be continued ! >> >> On 07/01/2015 15:02, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> Hi Tamil, >>> >>> I've merged / integrated the giant backports found at >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3186 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3178 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/2954 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3191 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3168 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3289 >>> >>> into=20 >>> >>> http://workbench.dachary.org/ceph/ceph/commit/0ea20e6c51208d6710f4694= 54ab3f964bfa7c9d2 >>> >>> and successfully ran make check on it >>> >>> http://workbench.dachary.org:8080/projects/10?ref=3Dgiant-backports >>> >>> If I'm not mistaken the next step would be to run teuthology. If I'm = to do it, would you be so kind as to let me know which suites are most re= levant ? If someone else will take care of it, should I push the integrat= ion branch somewhere ? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >> >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --kBvJ8Qt8eXgplUOIlGIrTHibhhJB3QlUn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlSz2OEACgkQ8dLMyEl6F22+HgCfdyN4/ZtSex/580TsfDZFnmQ2 vN4An0+EPQ20n8R120HCC7dbj/lesaSI =R+4H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kBvJ8Qt8eXgplUOIlGIrTHibhhJB3QlUn--