| To: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] URGENT potentially serious regression in 3.7.0 |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 2 Apr 2013 03:25:54 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <515A7236.5080901@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <513B99E4.7030007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <513D9A93.6080806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <515A7236.5080901@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | /ykjK1wcookNfFwBI3MrzCD6UG4SKg== |
| Thread-topic: | URGENT potentially serious regression in 3.7.0 |
----- Original Message ----- > On 11/03/13 19:49, Ken McDonell wrote: > > On 10/03/13 07:21, Ken McDonell wrote: > >> I had suspected, without any proof that PCP QA was running much slower. > >> > >> ... > > BUT if you change 169 so that the pmcd tracing is not buffered, i.e. > > > > pmstore pmcd.control.tracenobuf 1 > > > > after pmcd is reconfigured, then the test passes 20 out of 20 attempts. > > OK, I've spent many hours on this one and finally cracked it ... the core of > the problem is this turdlet in the pmcd code ... > ... > The commit is coming soon (once I've rerun qa/169 on all my QA machines). > Nice work - thanks Ken!!! -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] URGENT potentially serious regression in 3.7.0, Ken McDonell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | PCP developers meeting - 17/04/2013, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] URGENT potentially serious regression in 3.7.0, Ken McDonell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] URGENT potentially serious regression in 3.7.0, Dave Brolley |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |