hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Yuri Weinstein]

Hello

Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-61

The following suites were in scope of this point release testing:

rados (subset 1/7)
rbd
rgw
fs
krbd
kcephfs
hadoop
samba
rest
ceph-deploy
upgrade/client-upgrade
upgrade/dumpling-firefly-x (hammer)
upgrade/firefly-x (hammer)
upgrade/hammer
upgrade/hammer-x (infernalis)
powercycle

Outstanding issues (approval requested):

fs:
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716 - Greg, do you want those to be
fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?

samba:
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14714 - Greg, do you want those to be
fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?

krbd:
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14715
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14717
- Josh, do you want those to be fixed for this release or approve
release as is with known issues?

ceph-deploy:
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14223
- Sage, Alfredo, do you want those to be fixed for this release or
approve release  as is with a known issue?

Note - ovh environment is not performing reliably for some suites (rgw
-  http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14712, knfs -
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13980)

Thx
YuriW

Re: [Ceph-qa] hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Josh Durgin]

On 02/10/2016 10:56 AM, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> krbd:
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14715
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14717
> - Josh, do you want those to be fixed for this release or approve
> release as is with known issues?

These are test and kernel issues, they should not block the release.

Re: hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Gregory Farnum]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-61
>
> The following suites were in scope of this point release testing:
>
> rados (subset 1/7)
> rbd
> rgw
> fs
> krbd
> kcephfs
> hadoop
> samba
> rest
> ceph-deploy
> upgrade/client-upgrade
> upgrade/dumpling-firefly-x (hammer)
> upgrade/firefly-x (hammer)
> upgrade/hammer
> upgrade/hammer-x (infernalis)
> powercycle
>
> Outstanding issues (approval requested):
>
> fs:
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716 - Greg, do you want those to be
> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>
> samba:
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14714 - Greg, do you want those to be
> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?

I'll be evaluating both of these bugs today and will let you know.
-Greg

Re: hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Gregory Farnum]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-61
>>
>> The following suites were in scope of this point release testing:
>>
>> rados (subset 1/7)
>> rbd
>> rgw
>> fs
>> krbd
>> kcephfs
>> hadoop
>> samba
>> rest
>> ceph-deploy
>> upgrade/client-upgrade
>> upgrade/dumpling-firefly-x (hammer)
>> upgrade/firefly-x (hammer)
>> upgrade/hammer
>> upgrade/hammer-x (infernalis)
>> powercycle
>>
>> Outstanding issues (approval requested):
>>
>> fs:
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716 - Greg, do you want those to be
>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>>
>> samba:
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14714 - Greg, do you want those to be
>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?

Okay, I looked briefly at the samba issue and honestly I'm just not
that fussed about it. I'm a little concerned by the thread assert,
although the fact that it's happening on shutdown anyway mitigates it
some...
I suppose I wouldn't call it a release blocker, but it's not a great
precedent to set. I think ideally you'd want to try and identify where
it happened — is it a genuinely new issue, or something showing up on
the smithi boxes but not other hardware?
You might check that by running this on the miras and/or ovh, and by
running the version that last passed on ovh against smithi and seeing
if/where the issues show up.
-Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Yuri Weinstein]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-61
>>>
>>> The following suites were in scope of this point release testing:
>>>
>>> rados (subset 1/7)
>>> rbd
>>> rgw
>>> fs
>>> krbd
>>> kcephfs
>>> hadoop
>>> samba
>>> rest
>>> ceph-deploy
>>> upgrade/client-upgrade
>>> upgrade/dumpling-firefly-x (hammer)
>>> upgrade/firefly-x (hammer)
>>> upgrade/hammer
>>> upgrade/hammer-x (infernalis)
>>> powercycle
>>>
>>> Outstanding issues (approval requested):
>>>
>>> fs:
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716 - Greg, do you want those to be
>>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>>>
>>> samba:
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14714 - Greg, do you want those to be
>>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>
> Okay, I looked briefly at the samba issue and honestly I'm just not
> that fussed about it. I'm a little concerned by the thread assert,
> although the fact that it's happening on shutdown anyway mitigates it
> some...
> I suppose I wouldn't call it a release blocker, but it's not a great
> precedent to set. I think ideally you'd want to try and identify where
> it happened — is it a genuinely new issue, or something showing up on
> the smithi boxes but not other hardware?
> You might check that by running this on the miras and/or ovh, and by
> running the version that last passed on ovh against smithi and seeing
> if/where the issues show up.
> -Greg

OK, Greg, I will try rerunning samba jobs in suggested environments
and we will see more info.

Are you still looking into the fs issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716

Thx
YuriW
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Gregory Farnum]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-61
>>>>
>>>> The following suites were in scope of this point release testing:
>>>>
>>>> rados (subset 1/7)
>>>> rbd
>>>> rgw
>>>> fs
>>>> krbd
>>>> kcephfs
>>>> hadoop
>>>> samba
>>>> rest
>>>> ceph-deploy
>>>> upgrade/client-upgrade
>>>> upgrade/dumpling-firefly-x (hammer)
>>>> upgrade/firefly-x (hammer)
>>>> upgrade/hammer
>>>> upgrade/hammer-x (infernalis)
>>>> powercycle
>>>>
>>>> Outstanding issues (approval requested):
>>>>
>>>> fs:
>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716 - Greg, do you want those to be
>>>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>>>>
>>>> samba:
>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14714 - Greg, do you want those to be
>>>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>>
>> Okay, I looked briefly at the samba issue and honestly I'm just not
>> that fussed about it. I'm a little concerned by the thread assert,
>> although the fact that it's happening on shutdown anyway mitigates it
>> some...
>> I suppose I wouldn't call it a release blocker, but it's not a great
>> precedent to set. I think ideally you'd want to try and identify where
>> it happened — is it a genuinely new issue, or something showing up on
>> the smithi boxes but not other hardware?
>> You might check that by running this on the miras and/or ovh, and by
>> running the version that last passed on ovh against smithi and seeing
>> if/where the issues show up.
>> -Greg
>
> OK, Greg, I will try rerunning samba jobs in suggested environments
> and we will see more info.
>
> Are you still looking into the fs issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716

14716 is what I'm referring to when I talk about running the tests
elsewhere. :) I'm not looking at it actively right now but will take
the results of any bisecting tests to try and track it down further.
-Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: hammer v0.94.6 QE Validation status

[Yuri Weinstein]

See updates in 14716, in short it's persisting on different systems.
This is the only remaining issue before we can proceed with this release.

Thx
YuriW

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-61
>>>>>
>>>>> The following suites were in scope of this point release testing:
>>>>>
>>>>> rados (subset 1/7)
>>>>> rbd
>>>>> rgw
>>>>> fs
>>>>> krbd
>>>>> kcephfs
>>>>> hadoop
>>>>> samba
>>>>> rest
>>>>> ceph-deploy
>>>>> upgrade/client-upgrade
>>>>> upgrade/dumpling-firefly-x (hammer)
>>>>> upgrade/firefly-x (hammer)
>>>>> upgrade/hammer
>>>>> upgrade/hammer-x (infernalis)
>>>>> powercycle
>>>>>
>>>>> Outstanding issues (approval requested):
>>>>>
>>>>> fs:
>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716 - Greg, do you want those to be
>>>>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> samba:
>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14714 - Greg, do you want those to be
>>>>> fixed for this release or approve release as is with a known issue?
>>>
>>> Okay, I looked briefly at the samba issue and honestly I'm just not
>>> that fussed about it. I'm a little concerned by the thread assert,
>>> although the fact that it's happening on shutdown anyway mitigates it
>>> some...
>>> I suppose I wouldn't call it a release blocker, but it's not a great
>>> precedent to set. I think ideally you'd want to try and identify where
>>> it happened — is it a genuinely new issue, or something showing up on
>>> the smithi boxes but not other hardware?
>>> You might check that by running this on the miras and/or ovh, and by
>>> running the version that last passed on ovh against smithi and seeing
>>> if/where the issues show up.
>>> -Greg
>>
>> OK, Greg, I will try rerunning samba jobs in suggested environments
>> and we will see more info.
>>
>> Are you still looking into the fs issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14716
>
> 14716 is what I'm referring to when I talk about running the tests
> elsewhere. :) I'm not looking at it actively right now but will take
> the results of any bisecting tests to try and track it down further.
> -Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html