Filed a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1100 to track this issue and assigned to Anthony now.
Thanks -min On 1/31/13 4:52 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <t...@apache.org> wrote: >Reverted (1b922e8) the earlier fix for a better commit later. > >On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 05:18:04PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote: >> I don't know why it exists or it has to be this way either, we should >> just fix it. >> >> Anthony, if we check, lock db entity and expunge an entity would that >> save us from race condition, will that work? In such an approach, will >> this have any side effects: if I just return from actually expunging >> an entity which is already expunged? >> >> Regards. >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> >>wrote: >> > That's a bad/quick fix for http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-15922 >> > >> > Delete account will expunge all VMs for this account immediate , >> > if expunge.interval is too short , VM GC may kick in, then two >> > threads are trying to expunge the same VMs, which causes expunge >> > fail. >> > >> > I think you can remove the hacker, and reopen the bug. >> > >> > >> > Anthony >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 PM >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Subject: Re: Change in integration test for javelin >> >> >> >> Anthony can comment more on, he checked in that code to avoid some >>race >> >> conditions in expunge VM. >> >> >> >> -min >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:59 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM, prasanna <t...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> I know this code exists and it fails all the expunge tests >> >> internally. >> >> >> Do you know why it exists? Why should expunge be > 600 always? >>Seems >> >> >> like we're overriding the global setting that the admin sets and >> >> >> without log/warning. >> >> > >> >> > I concur - no idea why we would do this. If for no other reason >>than >> >> > it makes testing too long, sounds like a bad idea. >> >> > >> >> > --David > >-- >Prasanna.,
