| To: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] pcp QA status |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:56:54 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <683173640.795045.1466575709412.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <5767A046.3030207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <683173640.795045.1466575709412.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | NGapQ6sEZidwTIQcOKBSKwLYxvlAxtgGqzap |
| Thread-topic: | pcp QA status |
Hi guys, ----- Original Message ----- > ----- Original Message ----- > > [...] > > I think I've dealt with most of the VM environmental failures now, so these > > are probably real failures. > > [...] > > > 651 ditto > > The only clue I have here so far is that 651 only fails for me with a non- > secure-sockets enabled build. Still investigating though. > Somehow, this is fallout from commit 1b74b0f5e2bc - pmproxy connections working fine for secure sockets but failing for builds with regular sockets. Can I get you to dig deeper please Dave? You'll spot it much quicker than I will, and I guess the multiple connection attempts confuse pmproxy somehow. Noticed in the pmproxy.log there's plenty of "Bad version string" messages (i.e. no data ended up sent on a connection), which might be another clue. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | seeking help with python and qa/1069, Ken McDonell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pcp updates: small but important, Ken McDonell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pcp QA status, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pcp QA status, Dave Brolley |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |