[Gluster-devel] Spurious failures because of nfs and snapshots

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

The latest build failure also has the same issue:
Download it from here:
http://build.gluster.org:443/logs/glusterfs-logs-20140518%3a22%3a27%3a31.tgz

Pranith

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vijaikumar M" <vmallika at redhat.com>
> To: "Joseph Fernandes" <josferna at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> Sent: Monday, 19 May, 2014 11:41:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Spurious failures because of nfs and snapshots
> 
> Hi Joseph,
> 
> In the log mentioned below, it say ping-time is set to default value
> 30sec.I think issue is different.
> Can you please point me to the logs where you where able to re-create
> the problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vijay
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday 19 May 2014 09:39 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> > hi Vijai, Joseph,
> >      In 2 of the last 3 build failures,
> >      http://build.gluster.org/job/regression/4479/console,
> >      http://build.gluster.org/job/regression/4478/console this
> >      test(tests/bugs/bug-1090042.t) failed. Do you guys think it is better
> >      to revert this test until the fix is available? Please send a patch
> >      to revert the test case if you guys feel so. You can re-submit it
> >      along with the fix to the bug mentioned by Joseph.
> >
> > Pranith.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joseph Fernandes" <josferna at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, 16 May, 2014 5:13:57 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Spurious failures because of nfs and snapshots
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> tests/bugs/bug-1090042.t :
> >>
> >> I was able to reproduce the issue i.e when this test is done in a loop
> >>
> >> for i in {1..135} ; do  ./bugs/bug-1090042.t
> >>
> >> When checked the logs
> >> [2014-05-16 10:49:49.003978] I [rpc-clnt.c:973:rpc_clnt_connection_init]
> >> 0-management: setting frame-timeout to 600
> >> [2014-05-16 10:49:49.004035] I [rpc-clnt.c:988:rpc_clnt_connection_init]
> >> 0-management: defaulting ping-timeout to 30secs
> >> [2014-05-16 10:49:49.004303] I [rpc-clnt.c:973:rpc_clnt_connection_init]
> >> 0-management: setting frame-timeout to 600
> >> [2014-05-16 10:49:49.004340] I [rpc-clnt.c:988:rpc_clnt_connection_init]
> >> 0-management: defaulting ping-timeout to 30secs
> >>
> >> The issue is with ping-timeout and is tracked under the bug
> >>
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096729
> >>
> >>
> >> The workaround is mentioned in
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096729#c8
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> >> Cc: "Joseph Fernandes" <josferna at redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 6:19:54 AM
> >> Subject: Spurious failures because of nfs and snapshots
> >>
> >> hi,
> >>      In the latest build I fired for review.gluster.com/7766
> >>      (http://build.gluster.org/job/regression/4443/console) failed because
> >>      of
> >>      spurious failure. The script doesn't wait for nfs export to be
> >>      available. I fixed that, but interestingly I found quite a few
> >>      scripts
> >>      with same problem. Some of the scripts are relying on 'sleep 5' which
> >>      also could lead to spurious failures if the export is not available
> >>      in 5
> >>      seconds. We found that waiting for 20 seconds is better, but 'sleep
> >>      20'
> >>      would unnecessarily delay the build execution. So if you guys are
> >>      going
> >>      to write any scripts which has to do nfs mounts, please do it the
> >>      following way:
> >>
> >> EXPECT_WITHIN 20 "1" is_nfs_export_available;
> >> TEST mount -t nfs -o vers=3 $H0:/$V0 $N0;
> >>
> >> Please review http://review.gluster.com/7773 :-)
> >>
> >> I saw one more spurious failure in a snapshot related script
> >> tests/bugs/bug-1090042.t on the next build fired by Niels.
> >> Joesph (CCed) is debugging it. He agreed to reply what he finds and share
> >> it
> >> with us so that we won't introduce similar bugs in future.
> >>
> >> I encourage you guys to share what you fix to prevent spurious failures in
> >> future.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Pranith
> >>
> 
>