On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 23:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Laurent GUERBY <laur...@guerby.net> writes: > > > Any idea of why /bin/sh is running stuff in parallel instead > > of sequential? > > Have you tried set -x?
IIRC I tried at first but it didn't gave me useful information, everything looked "normal", then I switched to more invasive logging including three "ps fauxww" and "ls -l". On the statistical side over the past three monthes there were 17 occurrences of this issue: -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 29623 2009-05-21 18:05 psfauxw1-c48004d-20090521T180512 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 36904 2009-05-21 22:57 psfauxw1-d4a002b-20090521T225738 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 31810 2009-05-23 21:45 psfauxw1-d4a002b-20090523T214538 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 29774 2009-05-29 05:15 psfauxw1-d4a002b-20090529T051533 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30467 2009-07-02 17:06 psfauxw1-cxaa005-20090702T170643 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 64559 2009-07-03 08:15 psfauxw1-cxaa017-20090703T081509 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30227 2009-07-03 13:13 psfauxw1-d4a002a-20090703T131307 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30280 2009-07-03 22:43 psfauxw1-cb3003a-20090703T224359 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 29442 2009-07-12 03:57 psfauxw1-cb1001a-20090712T035707 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30361 2009-07-23 03:33 psfauxw1-cb20a02-20090723T033340 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30361 2009-07-23 03:42 psfauxw1-cz1103a-20090723T034235 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30443 2009-07-27 01:02 psfauxw1-c48004d-20090727T010248 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 30112 2009-07-30 02:03 psfauxw1-cz1102a-20090730T020304 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 34507 2009-08-02 04:34 psfauxw1-cd1009o-20090802T043428 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 37807 2009-08-08 11:08 psfauxw1-d4a002a-20090808T110858 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 38340 2009-08-09 16:52 psfauxw1-c48004d-20090809T165214 -rw-r--r-- 1 guerby guerby 38319 2009-08-13 20:28 psfauxw1-c48005b-20090813T202815 Since the machine runs on average 5 bootstrap+check a day and that ACATS has 2315 tests, it's a rate of failure of ~ 17 per one million individual test run. But it's at least one spurious FAIL in about 4% of bootstrap+check. Laurent
