-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SIGABRT make check fails on OSX #573
Comments
Having repeated this 3 times now, the error above has only occurred 2 out of the 3 times. That worries me that we now have an instability in Rocks. |
I'm able to repro, although it's not 2/3 for me -- it's about 1/10. Don't worry about instability :) Those things are usually due to instability in tests rather than RocksDB. |
Glad you can reproduce @igorcanadi. I guess My Mac is much older and therefore under more strain than yours; Perhaps that explains why I see it more frequently. Either way, I'll stop worrying now I know it's in your hands. Thanks. |
Close to fixing :) |
Summary: The problem is that sometimes two memtables will be compacted together into a single file. In that case, our assertion ASSERT_EQ(NumTableFilesAtLevel(0), 5); fails because same amount of data is in 4 files instead of 5. We should wait for flush so that we prevent two memtables merging into a single file. Test Plan: `for i in `seq 20`; do mrtest FIFOCompactionTest; done` -- fails at least once before. fails zero times after. Reviewers: rven Reviewed By: rven Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D36939
Should be fixed now. Let me know if you still see issues. |
@igorcanadi Well the problem just seems to have moved now. Instead after your fix, on my first run of
|
I'm pretty sure those two are unrelated :) But I'll take a look at the other one. |
Thanks @igorcanadi... of course from my perspective, the subject of this issue ticket is still valid ;-) So this new issue is intermittent also. It happened on the first run but not the second, doing a 3rd run now... |
How does it look like now? https://reviews.facebook.net/D36951 |
@igorcanadi On the 3rd and 4th run, I see yet another different issue (i.e. before your D36951 is applied):
I do wonder how my machine triggers these so easily compared with you guys... |
The second test should be addressed by the diff. @siying knows more about the third test failure, so I'm assigning this to him. |
Hmm I bet @siying really loves me right now ;-) |
@adamretter your problems are always hard:) But thank you for reporting them. |
I get 4/50 failures for the last test. So I can repro as well :) |
Have a patch to simplify the test: https://reviews.facebook.net/D36999 Hopefully it tells us more information if it still fails. I don't have a Mac to verify it. |
@siying I can trigger the failure on my dev server when I run parallel |
What's the failure message? |
Same as @adamretter 's |
@igorcanadi with my latest patch? |
Looks like it's passing with your latest pathc |
Thank you for reporting this issue and appreciate your patience. We've notified the core team for an update on this issue. We're looking for a response within the next 30 days or the issue may be closed. |
@igorcanadi @siying If the latest patch got applied, we can close this ticket. |
This on the current
HEAD
of master:$ make clean jclean check
Eventually leads to:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: