Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> RestartIT.restartMasterRecovery


Copy link to this message
-
Re: RestartIT.restartMasterRecovery
No, if you have a good fix in mind, you should go for it.  I was just gonna
make the test choose the monitor port explicitly in the config it passes
in, but that was motivated by wanting to get the tests fixed so I could
move onto testing what I'm actually working on.  Looking forward to seeing
how it *should* be done.  Thanks again for cleaning this up!

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> If we use :0 it will avoid a race condition where you pick a random open
> port but the port gets taken before the monitor binds to it. Plus it
> couldn't hurt to make sure the port registration in Zookeeper works.
>
> It sounded like you might be interested in patching this issue. Feel free,
> if you'd like. Otherwise I'll probably get to it tomorrow. An example of
> retrieving the monitor location is in server.util.Info.
>
> Billie
> On Sep 13, 2013 5:37 PM, "Michael Berman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, thanks Billie.
> >
> > Is it actually important for the MAC to use the :0 binding to get random
> > ports?  Or is this just a way to exercise that code path?  It seems like
> > this particular test isn't the only consumer that would want to know what
> > randomly assigned port MAC services are running on, so I think it would
> be
> > good to have them conveniently accessible somewhere (although admittedly
> > the old way of modifying the config map that you passed into the MAConfig
> > is a pretty obscure way to expose them).
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Michael Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like the RestartIT issue could have been introduced with the
> > > introduction of a configurable GC in the MAC in Josh's a028e7 last
> week,
> > > and from the commit log it looks like the 1.5.1 and 1.4.5 branches
> might
> > > have the same issue.
> > >
> > > Seems like the ReadWriteIT error was introduced in Billie's 6e7269 two
> > > days ago.
> > >
> > > Process question: the relevant issues are all marked resolved.  If I
> want
> > > to submit patches, should I reopen the bugs?  Or file new bugs
> > specifically
> > > about the ITs?
> > >
> >
>