Open Stack

Heh, I didn't know that wiki page existed. I've added an entry to the checklist.

There's also some talk of adding some help text to the vote message
turbo-hipster leaves in gerrit, but we haven't gotten around to doing
that yet.

Cheers,
Michael

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Matt Riedemann
<mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/31/2013 3:58 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> So while turbo hipster is new, I've been reading every failure message
>> it produces to make sure its not too badly wrong. There were four
>> failures posted last night while I slept:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64521
>> ============================
>>
>> This one is a TH bug. We shouldn't be testing stable branches.
>> bug/1265238 has been filed to track this.
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61753
>> ============================
>>
>> This is your review. The failed run's log is
>>
>> https://ssl.rcbops.com/turbo_hipster/logviewer/?q=/turbo_hipster/results/61/61753/8/check/gate-real-db-upgrade_nova_percona_user_001/1326092/user_001.log
>> and you can see from the failure message that migrations 152 and 206
>> took "too long".
>>
>> Migration 152 took 326 seconds, where our historical data of 2,846
>> test migrations says it should take 222 seconds. Migration 206 took 81
>> seconds, where we think it should take 56 seconds based on 2,940 test
>> runs.
>>
>> Whilst I can't explain why those migrations took too long this time
>> around, they are certainly exactly the sort of thing TH is meant to
>> catch. If you think your patch isn't responsible (perhaps the machine
>> is just being slow or something), you can always retest by leaving a
>> review comment of "recheck migrations". I have done this for you on
>> this patch.
>
>
> Michael, is "recheck migrations" something that is going to be added to the
> wiki for test failures here?
>
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GerritJenkinsGit#Test_Failures
>
>
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61717
>> ============================
>>
>> This review also had similar unexplained slowness, but has already
>> been rechecked by someone else and now passes. I note that the
>> slowness in both cases was from the same TH worker node, and I will
>> keep an eye on that node today.
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56420
>> ============================
>>
>> This review also had slowness in migration 206, but has been rechecked
>> by the developer and now passes. It wasn't on the percona-001 worker
>> that the other two were on, so perhaps this indicates that we need to
>> relax the timing requirements for migration 206.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> It seems that she/he is behaving oddly again. I have posted a patch that
>>> does not have any database changes and it has give me a –1….
>>> Happy new year
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Riedemann
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Rackspace Australia