On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 03:07:15PM +0200, Ondřej Kuzník wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:45:30PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > --On Saturday, June 22, 2019 2:06 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> > wrote:
> >
> >> [build@freebsd12 ~/git/openldap-2-4/tests/testrun]$ diff -u server1.out
> >>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:45:30PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Saturday, June 22, 2019 2:06 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> wrote:
>
>> [build@freebsd12 ~/git/openldap-2-4/tests/testrun]$ diff -u server1.out
>> server3.out
>> --- server1.out 2019-06-22 18:23:54.93360 +
>> +++
--On Thursday, June 27, 2019 1:09 PM +0200 Ondřej Kuzník
wrote:
Not sure the above is the same failure I'm seeing, so will outline mine
(reproduced on master+ITS#9043 logging):
I was just badly summarizing our earlier discussions, it was the same
thing. ;)
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mou
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:45:30PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Saturday, June 22, 2019 2:06 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> wrote:
> There appears to be two separate problems happening in test050.
>
> Problem #1) Null cookie is generated, causing catastrophic database loss
> across th
--On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 5:45 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
Problem #2) If a MMR node is processing a change during which a slapd
shutdown is initiated, it will update the contextCSN of the database but
LOSE the related change (at least with a delete op), resulting in a
database diffe
--On Saturday, June 22, 2019 2:06 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
[build@freebsd12 ~/git/openldap-2-4/tests/testrun]$ diff -u server1.out
server3.out
--- server1.out 2019-06-22 18:23:54.93360 +
+++ server3.out 2019-06-22 18:23:55.049209000 +
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+dn: cn=Add-Mod-Del,
--On Sunday, June 23, 2019 12:59 AM +0200 Michael Ströder
wrote:
On 6/22/19 10:06 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I've noticed that when running test050 in a loop, it often fails, even
after increasing the sleep timeout defaults. Where it fails in the test
is inconsistent and which servers di
On 6/22/19 10:06 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I've noticed that when running test050 in a loop, it often fails, even
> after increasing the sleep timeout defaults. Where it fails in the test
> is inconsistent and which servers differ is inconsistent as well.
I can confirm that it fails on my
On 6/22/19 10:06 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I've noticed that when running test050 in a loop, it often fails, even
> after increasing the sleep timeout defaults.
Many many moons ago there was ITS#7087 which has been fixed.
Test is running here...
Ciao, Michael.
I've noticed that when running test050 in a loop, it often fails, even
after increasing the sleep timeout defaults. Where it fails in the test is
inconsistent and which servers differ is inconsistent as well. I'm
concerned we may have a regression or perhaps long standing issue here that
needs
10 matches
Mail list logo
