From: Abhishek L <abhishek@suse.com>
To: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>,
"Durgin, Josh" <jdurgin@redhat.com>,
Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com>,
"Dillaman, Jason" <dillaman@redhat.com>,
Alfredo Deza <adeza@redhat.com>, Samuel Just <sjust@redhat.com>
Cc: Abhishek L <abhishek@suse.com>,
Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com>,
Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
Abhishek Varshney <abhishek.varshney@flipkart.com>,
"Dachary, Loic" <ldachary@redhat.com>,
"Dachary, Loic" <loic@dachary.org>,
Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, John Spray <jspray@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: ceph v10.2.4 QE validation status
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:00:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87twam4ejf.fsf@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1611301656070.2097@piezo.novalocal>
Sage Weil writes:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote:
>> Abhishek L writes:
>>
>> > Sage Weil writes:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Abhishek L writes:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Sage Weil writes:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Hi Sage, Greg,
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Yuri Weinstein writes:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> > See updated status - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-32
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > Outstanding issues:
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > knfs - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16397 (same as in v10.2.3, Greg
>> >>> >>> > pls review/approve, assumed Approved ?)
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17847 ((Sage
>> >>> >>> > pls review/approve, seems persistent, but maybe not a showstopper)
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > upgrade/infernalis-x (jewel) - deprecated (Nathan is still working
>> >>> >>> > to make it pass, see issues in the tacker summary above)
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > Sage, jewel 10.2.4 can be released as soon as you agree with the
>> >>> >>> > findings/summary.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Do you think we're ready to release 10.2.4 yet?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I'm reproducing http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17847 with logs to make
>> >>> >> sure this isn't a regression.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> We can ignore the infernalis runs.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I think we can ignore the knfs selinux issue too.. Greg, can you confirm?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > Added the prs 12001 & 12167 on top of the jewel branch and scheduled rados runs
>> >>> > at
>> >>> > http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-11-29_10:22:25-rados-wip-jewel-10-2-4-distro-basic-smithi/ &
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/pull/1292
>> >>
>> >> avoids xenial for the rados upgrade tests (in jewel branch).
>>
>> Ah alright, maybe this was the cause after all, let's get this in (or
>> push a branch to ceph-qa-suite so that I can schedule against that)
>
> I added a patch for the client-upgrade tests to the same branch. You
> should be able to just schedule with --suite-branch jewel-avoid-xenial
> instead of --suite-branch jewel (for both rados and
> upgrade/client-upgrade).
>
> sage
>
>
>> >>
>> >> The upgrade tests already explicitly call out trusty, so they should be
>> >> fine.
>> >>
>> >>> > updated the tracker at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-17,
>> >>> > with details of the test. I'll update the progress once the suite goes
>> >>> > through
>> >>>
>> >>> Had around 11 tests fail from 296 scheduled, there were a couple of
>> >>> valgrind issues on ceph-mon (which were seen at earlier runs on jewel as
>> >>> well) and an s3test failure, rest of the issues were looking related to
>> >>> infrastructure as they were failing to get specific version numbers from
>> >>> gitbuilders.
>> >>>
>> >>> Reported this issue as:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089
>> >>>
>> >>> subsequent re runs are still failing with similar errors. The details
>> >>> are updated at
>> >>>
>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-37
>> >>>
>> >>> The upgrade suite has also failed with similar errors.
>> >>
>> >> Which one?
>> > The upgrade/client-upgrade suite (I hope this is the right upgrade
>> > suite), the errors are the same failed to fetch package version errors
>> > seen for the rados suite, so not actual test run errors yet.
>> >
>> > http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-11-30_09:58:50-upgrade:client-upgrade-wip-jewel-10-2-4-distro-basic-smithi/
>> > is the run
>> >
Update on the current status,
For prs 12001 & 12167: (sage/Sam)
The upgrade passed with the exception of infernalis/jewel which failed
with RBD (test_librbd_api.sh) (jdillaman please approve)
http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-12-02_09:45:37-upgrade:client-upgrade-wip-jewel-10-2-4-distro-basic-smithi/
the rados run (with the exception of the valgrind issue) are still
waiting for completion for 4 of the 296 jobs, this one suite always
seems to die when scheduled, this is the current url of the rados jobs
(still waiting)
http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-12-02_10:06:39-rados-wip-jewel-10-2-4-rc-distro-basic-smithi/
for pr 12207: (josh)
the rgw suite also saw the same valgrind issue
(http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-12-01_22:19:07-rgw-wip-jewel-10-2-4-rc-distro-basic-smithi/)
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/12267, (mon cleanup) was merged on Sam's approval.
prs 11884 & 12067 (Sam, Alfredo):
the ceph create-keys pr #11884 hasn't been merged yet into jewel, is
there any suite that must be run to validate this. Same applies for
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/12067 (OSDMon: MOSDBoot )
Further the details of all the runs so far are captured at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-37
I'll update soon once the rados jobs complete.
Best,
Abhishek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-02 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-11 16:47 ceph v10.2.4 QE validation status Yuri Weinstein
2016-11-11 16:58 ` Ilya Dryomov
2016-11-13 12:15 ` John Spray
2016-11-13 12:34 ` Nathan Cutler
2016-11-14 22:20 ` Yuri Weinstein
2016-11-15 8:18 ` Nathan Cutler
2016-11-23 10:39 ` Abhishek L
2016-11-23 14:39 ` Gregory Farnum
2016-11-23 14:42 ` Sage Weil
2016-11-23 15:06 ` John Spray
2016-11-29 10:46 ` Abhishek L
2016-11-30 14:57 ` Abhishek L
2016-11-30 16:01 ` Sage Weil
2016-11-30 16:21 ` Abhishek L
2016-11-30 16:29 ` Abhishek L
2016-11-30 16:57 ` Sage Weil
2016-12-02 14:00 ` Abhishek L [this message]
2016-12-05 11:53 ` Abhishek L
2016-12-07 13:06 ` Alfredo Deza
2016-11-30 16:09 ` Josh Durgin
2016-11-30 16:23 ` Abhishek L
2016-11-30 16:35 ` Josh Durgin
2016-11-30 21:56 ` Ken Dreyer
2016-11-30 22:09 ` Abhishek L
2016-12-01 8:09 ` Yoann Moulin
2016-12-01 13:26 ` Alfredo Deza
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87twam4ejf.fsf@suse.com \
--to=abhishek@suse.com \
--cc=abhishek.varshney@flipkart.com \
--cc=adeza@redhat.com \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dillaman@redhat.com \
--cc=gfarnum@redhat.com \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jdurgin@redhat.com \
--cc=jspray@redhat.com \
--cc=ldachary@redhat.com \
--cc=loic@dachary.org \
--cc=ncutler@suse.cz \
--cc=sage@newdream.net \
--cc=sjust@redhat.com \
--cc=yweinste@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox