----- Original Message -----
> On 19/07/16 16:44, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > ...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> ...
> >> 1108 is a mystery ... we get 2 primary pmloggers started ...
>
> I finally nailed this one ... see ugly commit from this morning for
> pmlogger.
Great!!!
> >> 361 has gone a bit under the radar ...
> > ...
> > Fixed now.
>
> Yep, passing everywhere now, thanks.
>
> > 381 is possibly due to pmlogger being more resilient to pmcd &| pmda
> > restarts
> > now ... but I'd have expected it to see the same failure signature
> > everywhere?
>
> This one remains unresolved.
>
> > That 581 failure we've talked about before too I think - seems to be
> > sensitive
> > to number of open fds in pmcd,...
>
> I think this is 578 (not 581) .. the +/-1 slop I added reduced the
> failure rate, but I'm still seeing some failures ... I'd have to
> increase it to -1/+4 slop to get 'em all passing, and I'm not sure if
> that is the right thing to do, but will probably make that change given
> what the test is trying to establish (and in particular that we have no
> evidence of fd leaks in this part of the code).
If my #fds dependent on #addresses from getaddrinfo theory is correct,
this is probably the best we can do (unless we went as far as writing
a new qa/src program to extract a count of addresses from getaddrinfo
and use that to set the filtering bounds - seems like overkill though).
> [...]
> No luck on this one ... random checking suggests the same version on
> passing and failing hosts, e.g. passes on vm03, fails on vm02, but ...
>
> kenj@bozo:~$ ssh vm02 pmconfig -L sasl_version
> sasl_version=2.1.26
> kenj@bozo:~$ ssh vm03 pmconfig -L sasl_version
> sasl_version=2.1.26
>
Ugh, back to the drawing board on that one.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|