Open Stack

On 07/09/2014 04:12 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 07/09/2014 10:01 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 07/09/2014 01:32 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> Recently looking at a gate failure, which was a 500 error from glance.
>>> So I expected that glance would have a pretty clear trace in the logs.
>>> Filtering at WARN level... it did not. Eventually through timestamp
>>> mapping I found this:
>>> http://logs.openstack.org/33/100933/3/gate/gate-tempest-dsvm-full/e21d71a/logs/screen-g-api.txt.gz#_2014-07-09_00_27_38_268
>>>
>>> Dumping a stack trace at INFO level is definitely not cool. This was
>>> very clearly a 500 error in Glance, which needs to be an actual ERROR.
>>> It would be great if there was more info about why it failed (the g-reg
>>> error really should be propagated up, as it turns out this is a deadlock
>>> issue -
>>> http://logs.openstack.org/33/100933/3/gate/gate-tempest-dsvm-full/e21d71a/logs/screen-g-reg.txt.gz#_2014-07-09_00_27_38_261)
>>>
>>> Hidding real errors in the logs is something that's just as problematic
>>> as logging things that aren't error as errors.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for spotting this and bringing it up. Did you file a bug for this
>> issue?
> 
> No. Glance has 246 open bugs, over 40% of which are in 'new' state. The
> number of open bugs exceeds the # of patches landed so far in Juno by a
> factor of 3 (and is only slightly less than the number of Glance changes
> landed in Icehouse).
> 
> Which means I assume the bug tracker is a black hole and will not result
> in any action. Hence bringing it to the mailing list.

It's not a black hole, there are folks that look at it.

I know the status of Glance's bug tracker but regardless of it, I asked
because I actually wanted to file one if you hadn't. There was no need
to throw all these numbers in you email, which TBH are not an excuse for me.

There's nothing bad with bringing things up to the mailing list but it
will likely be forgotten unless someone does something immediately.

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco