Thx
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 8:46 AM Mykola Golub <to.my.trociny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:00 AM Mykola Golub
<to.my.trociny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 05:56:00PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>
> > For rbd, there is a suspicious failure that persisted through the
> > rerun:
> >
> >
http://qa-proxy.ceph.com/teuthology/yuriw-2021-06-21_15:45:39-rbd-nautilus-…
> >
http://qa-proxy.ceph.com/teuthology/yuriw-2021-06-22_15:18:36-rbd-nautilus-…
>
> Just FYI, it is also reproducible on v14.2.21 (sha1:
5ef401921d7a88aea18ec7558f7f9374ebd8f5a6):
>
>
http://qa-proxy.ceph.com/teuthology/trociny-2021-06-24_16:42:49-rbd-wip-mgo…
>
> So it does not look like a regression. I was able to reproduce it on
> centos only while on ubuntu it always passed for me.
Yuri's successful run which didn't include the last couple of rbd PRs
was also on ubuntu. But I do see a green centos job among your runs so
it doesn't appear to be OS specific:
http://qa-proxy.ceph.com/teuthology/trociny-2021-06-24_15:01:11-rbd-wip-mgo…
Yes it could succeed on centos. What I meant is that I had naver seen
it to fail on ubuntu, though I also don't think it is OS specific. It
also did not fail when I increased the rbd debug level to track the
hang.
Filed
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/51362 with
the (so far scarce)
details.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
Mykola Golub