On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) > <gcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> >> As previously noted, using leveldb caused some trouble with Ceph could >> be included in Wheezy or not. >> I've proposed that the supported architectures should be limited in Ceph >> and leveldb to the ones the latter supports. I got a release critical >> bugreport[1] that it should be reversed. Alessio Treglia, the leveldb >> maintainer in Debian wrote the following: >> "I'm going to test leveldb on powerpc and then I'll report my results >> to upstream. >> Hence I cannot promise it will be ready in time for Wheezy, of course >> I'll upload a patch as soon as a fix becomes available.". >> >> Upstream was asked[2], noted that it fails on big-endian architectures, >> but no answer until now. >> >> Then, as it was previously announced, the freeze of Wheezy started some >> hours ago[3]. >> >> Soon, after that Julien Cristau, one of our Release Assistant noted >> about Ceph doesn't build on all architectures due to leveldb: >> "Unless this gets fixed we'll have to remove ceph from wheezy. Which >> means qemu and qemu-kvm need to drop their build-deps on ceph packages. >> They can always be re-added if/when leveldb/ceph are fixed.". >> >> It seems everything is up to leveldb upstream/maintainer now. It is >> fixed in time on big-endian machines or the package will be limited to >> little-endian machines as I wanted to do with Ceph. >> >> But please look into the reason why Ceph fails to build on ia64[4]. >> Also, how 0.48 goes? Will it contain big differences to 0.47.2? As you >> can read, even 0.47.2 is in question for Wheezy. But would you propose >> 0.48 for inclusion when it's released? >> >> Fingers crossed. Regards, >> Laszlo/GCS >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677626 >> [2] http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=84 >> [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/06/msg00009.html >> [4] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ceph&arch=ia64&ver=0.47.2-1&stamp=1340802492 >> > > > I looked into why leveldb fails to build on big endian, and the reason > seems quite trivial. The bloom_test unitest passes different input due > to endianity, and the result is not as expected due to statistical > difference of the input; there are more false positive. I played with > it a bit, and when transforming the input to little endian it passed. > I also got the same failure on a little endian machine when I > transformed it to big endian. There are two solutions, one is to bump > up the expected false positives to a higher number (e.g., 3% instead > of 2%): > > diff --git a/util/bloom_test.cc b/util/bloom_test.cc > index 4a6ea1b..61323af 100644 > --- a/util/bloom_test.cc > +++ b/util/bloom_test.cc > @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ TEST(BloomTest, VaryingLengths) { > fprintf(stderr, "False positives: %5.2f%% @ length = %6d ; > bytes = %6d\n", > rate*100.0, length, static_cast<int>(FilterSize())); > } > - ASSERT_LE(rate, 0.02); // Must not be over 2% > + ASSERT_LE(rate, 0.03); // Must not be over 2% > if (rate > 0.0125) mediocre_filters++; // Allowed, but not too often > else good_filters++; > } > > I sent a query to the leveldb mailing list (sorry for not cross posting, was having trouble with google groups). I got a response from Sanjay and he said that bumping up the check to 0.03 (as with the above patch) is ok as a quick solution. He'll work on a better solution along the lines of my other proposed change later. I made the above patch available in the following git repository: https://code.google.com/r/yehuda-leveldb/ Yehuda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
