Still running tests non stop here as well - I'll ping the list if I see it again.
- Mark On 7/31/10 12:38 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > FYI, I'm now running this in a loop on my ubuntu box, without the > retry-loop, trying to replicate a failure. > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Yonik Seeley > <[email protected]> wrote: >> OK, can you try to reproduce now? >> Since the comments indicated that all the commits were to bump up the >> index version number, I kept them all and just inserted an additional >> commit in the query retry loop. >> >> But actually... there may still be a bug somewhere (even if this fixes >> the test failures). >> Each commit should wait for a new searcher to be registered before >> returning... hence it should be impossible for overlapping warming >> searchers to be responsible for the failure. Hence when the test >> fails, either the doc add, or the commit is failing. >> >> -Yonik >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Yonik Seeley >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Do the logs give any hints? >>> Downside of only logging SEVERE is that it's much harder to >>> investigate the cause of any intermittent failures that do happen. >>> >>> Looking at this test code, you shouldn't have to wait at all. The >>> test disables replication, indexes docs to the slave, commits (and >>> waits for a new searcher to be registered), and then queries the >>> slave. >>> >>> We should just remove that wait loop. >>> >>> Oh... i just figured it out while writing this I think... >>> >>> index(slaveClient, "id", 551, "name", "name = " + 551); >>> slaveClient.commit(true, true); >>> index(slaveClient, "id", 552, "name", "name = " + 552); >>> slaveClient.commit(true, true); >>> index(slaveClient, "id", 553, "name", "name = " + 553); >>> slaveClient.commit(true, true); >>> index(slaveClient, "id", 554, "name", "name = " + 554); >>> slaveClient.commit(true, true); >>> index(slaveClient, "id", 555, "name", "name = " + 555); >>> slaveClient.commit(true, true); >>> >>> I bet that last commit can fail due to max warming searchers. >>> I'll fix. >>> >>> -Yonik >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> This looks like it might actually be an issue - it fails once every 20 >>>> runs or so as a guess. >>>> >>>> [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.solr.handler.TestReplicationHandler >>>> [junit] Testcase: >>>> testReplicateAfterWrite2Slave(org.apache.solr.handler.TestReplicationHandler): >>>> FAILED >>>> [junit] expected:<1> but was:<0> >>>> [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<1> but was:<0> >>>> [junit] at >>>> org.apache.solr.handler.TestReplicationHandler.testReplicateAfterWrite2Slave(TestReplicationHandler.java:464) >>>> [junit] >>>> [junit] >>>> [junit] Tests run: 7, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 343.909 sec >>>> >>>> At first I tried to extend the wait for it, but that's obviously no help >>>> - in this case the test failed after running for 343 seconds. I've seen it >>>> as high as 968 seconds. >>>> >>>> - Mark >>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
