Open Stack

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