--On Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:57 AM +1000 brett.maxfield@gmail.com wrote:
are all (test050 etc.,) changes comitted to RE24 cvs now?
i was running on suse 10.3 dual core xen kernel about 12h ago and had a failure.. i will re-test tonight
checked out vanilla re24 with bdb 4.7 + patches.
Hold off a little bit, the latest ITS fix has revealed some other long-standing bugs.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
--On Monday, October 06, 2008 4:57 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
Hold off a little bit, the latest ITS fix has revealed some other long-standing bugs.
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 02:08 , Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, October 06, 2008 4:57 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com
wrote:
Hold off a little bit, the latest ITS fix has revealed some other long-standing bugs.
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
On OS X 10.5.5/Intel, Core2 Duo, against BDB 4.7.25p1 with the additional BDB patch build/db.4.7.25.patch all tests run fine.
jens
--On Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:31 PM +0200 Jens Vagelpohl jens@dataflake.org wrote:
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
On OS X 10.5.5/Intel, Core2 Duo, against BDB 4.7.25p1 with the additional BDB patch build/db.4.7.25.patch all tests run fine.
Did you use back-hdb? And how did you configure BDB 4.7? For me, the tests fail on OSX 10.4 with back-hdb and BDB 4.7.25 + the patches.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
--On Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:33 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:31 PM +0200 Jens Vagelpohl jens@dataflake.org wrote:
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
On OS X 10.5.5/Intel, Core2 Duo, against BDB 4.7.25p1 with the additional BDB patch build/db.4.7.25.patch all tests run fine.
Did you use back-hdb? And how did you configure BDB 4.7? For me, the tests fail on OSX 10.4 with back-hdb and BDB 4.7.25 + the patches.
Same deal for me with OSX 10.5.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
--On Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:36 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:33 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:31 PM +0200 Jens Vagelpohl jens@dataflake.org wrote:
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
On OS X 10.5.5/Intel, Core2 Duo, against BDB 4.7.25p1 with the additional BDB patch build/db.4.7.25.patch all tests run fine.
Did you use back-hdb? And how did you configure BDB 4.7? For me, the tests fail on OSX 10.4 with back-hdb and BDB 4.7.25 + the patches.
Same deal for me with OSX 10.5.
Never mind, operator error. 10.4 & 10.5 are fine.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Quanah Gibson-Mount writes:
Hold off a little bit, the latest ITS fix has revealed some other long-standing bugs.
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
I think it will bring forth more bugs yet. Re-reading ITS#5340, it lists a number of times REP_ENTRY_MUSTRELEASE and other flags are not properly reset. Combined with overlay, callback and error handling code I have a hard time seeing just what's supposed to happen though.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Hallvard B Furuseth < h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote:
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
I think it will bring forth more bugs yet. Re-reading ITS#5340, it lists a number of times REP_ENTRY_MUSTRELEASE and other flags are not properly reset. Combined with overlay, callback and error handling code I have a hard time seeing just what's supposed to happen though.
Seems to work ok for me first time through, but will let it run a few more times.
Would the issue you describe require memory profiling to detect ?
Cheers Brett
Brett @Google writes:
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
I think it will bring forth more bugs yet. Re-reading ITS#5340, it lists a number of times REP_ENTRY_MUSTRELEASE and other flags are not properly reset. Combined with overlay, callback and error handling code I have a hard time seeing just what's supposed to happen though.
Seems to work ok for me first time through, but will let it run a few more times.
Would the issue you describe require memory profiling to detect ?
The discussion (message #8 in the ITS) refers to "some" code which does this or that incorrectly, so I'm not sure offhand how to provoke a problem. Possibly both memory leaks and double frees of entries. Or locks that get held too long, so you'll have problems if you pull the plug on the network during a memory operation.
I suppose we could make a "try everything at once"-test: Stacks a bunch of overlays on top of each other, including chaining/back-ldap to the same server, then run some operations which will succeed and some which will fail at various levels in the overlay stack. Not me yet, though.
HI!
Please take note of the seg fault described in ITS#5730.
Not sure if it's new in RE24. I think it is. Didn't notice that before although using these directory entries all day.
Ciao, Michael.
Michael Ströder wrote:
HI!
Please take note of the seg fault described in ITS#5730.
Not sure if it's new in RE24. I think it is. Didn't notice that before although using these directory entries all day.
Ciao, Michael.
Sorry, yes it's new, a result of my "release entries earlier" patch. Will fix in a moment.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Ok, please proceed with testing RE24.
Tests OK Solaris 9 sparcv7/v9 and Fedora 9 x86_64.
Likely irrelevant note: I started my Solaris testing before the ITS#5729 fix was tagged RE24. I'll rerun it just for the "there's no way that could matter" sake -- but don't wait up on my part. The Fedora testing did have RE24 accurate as of this writing.
-
Aaron Richton -
Brett ＠Google -
Hallvard B Furuseth -
Howard Chu -
Jens Vagelpohl -
Michael Ströder -
Quanah Gibson-Mount