On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote: > Abhishek L writes: > > > Sage Weil writes: > > > >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote: > >>> > >>> Abhishek L writes: > >>> > >>> > Sage Weil writes: > >>> > > >>> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Hi Sage, Greg, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yuri Weinstein writes: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > See updated status - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-32 > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Outstanding issues: > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > knfs - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16397 (same as in v10.2.3, Greg > >>> >>> > pls review/approve, assumed Approved ?) > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17847 ((Sage > >>> >>> > pls review/approve, seems persistent, but maybe not a showstopper) > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > upgrade/infernalis-x (jewel) - deprecated (Nathan is still working > >>> >>> > to make it pass, see issues in the tacker summary above) > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Sage, jewel 10.2.4 can be released as soon as you agree with the > >>> >>> > findings/summary. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Do you think we're ready to release 10.2.4 yet? > >>> >> > >>> >> I'm reproducing http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17847 with logs to make > >>> >> sure this isn't a regression. > >>> >> > >>> >> We can ignore the infernalis runs. > >>> >> > >>> >> I think we can ignore the knfs selinux issue too.. Greg, can you confirm? > >>> >> > >>> > Added the prs 12001 & 12167 on top of the jewel branch and scheduled rados runs > >>> > at > >>> > http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-11-29_10:22:25-rados-wip-jewel-10-2-4-distro-basic-smithi/ & > >> > >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/pull/1292 > >> > >> avoids xenial for the rados upgrade tests (in jewel branch). > > Ah alright, maybe this was the cause after all, let's get this in (or > push a branch to ceph-qa-suite so that I can schedule against that) I added a patch for the client-upgrade tests to the same branch. You should be able to just schedule with --suite-branch jewel-avoid-xenial instead of --suite-branch jewel (for both rados and upgrade/client-upgrade). sage > >> > >> The upgrade tests already explicitly call out trusty, so they should be > >> fine. > >> > >>> > updated the tracker at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-17, > >>> > with details of the test. I'll update the progress once the suite goes > >>> > through > >>> > >>> Had around 11 tests fail from 296 scheduled, there were a couple of > >>> valgrind issues on ceph-mon (which were seen at earlier runs on jewel as > >>> well) and an s3test failure, rest of the issues were looking related to > >>> infrastructure as they were failing to get specific version numbers from > >>> gitbuilders. > >>> > >>> Reported this issue as: > >>> > >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089 > >>> > >>> subsequent re runs are still failing with similar errors. The details > >>> are updated at > >>> > >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-37 > >>> > >>> The upgrade suite has also failed with similar errors. > >> > >> Which one? > > The upgrade/client-upgrade suite (I hope this is the right upgrade > > suite), the errors are the same failed to fetch package version errors > > seen for the rados suite, so not actual test run errors yet. > > > > http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-11-30_09:58:50-upgrade:client-upgrade-wip-jewel-10-2-4-distro-basic-smithi/ > > is the run > > > > Best, > > Abhishek > > > -- > Abhishek Lekshmanan > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > -- > 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 > >
