You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While looking at this test being flaky in February, it was discovered to fail always on a connection in the low 20s. In other words, if it failed, it failed on connection 22 or 23 or 24, but never on 16 or 36 or 46 or 59 or...
Which was very odd...
And now it seems that we're seeing that number creep lower resulting in increased flakiness on Pi 2 devices. I have no explanation. It's really weird.
Ugh. Not sure what to do. Bringing it down to 12 or so would probably fix it, but it would seem that in another month, we'd likely be facing the same issue again.
While looking at this test being flaky in February, it was discovered to fail always on a connection in the low 20s. In other words, if it failed, it failed on connection 22 or 23 or 24, but never on 16 or 36 or 46 or 59 or...
@Trott Would it be worth stress testing the test with the source code we had in February, just to check whether it's a problem in the code or in the raspberry bots?
Confounding results: Previous version of the test (that used 100 connections) failed, of course.
But no failures on any of the other stress tests, including current master.
Maybe its flakiness is dependent on other things going on on the network or something? I mean, it shouldn't be, right? Maybe confirm that the test is using localhost and not something odd like the machine's networked IP or (would this next one even work?) a broadcast address or something...
Tests confirm that 757fbac is the last good commit and b85a50b is the first bad one. Now the questions are:
Is the problem one of configuration with the Pi2 devices?
Or is the problem with the code change running on Pi2 (which is just Linux, right? and not that different from other Pi devices on which we're not seeing problems, right?)
Does this only happen on a specific subset of the Pi2s?
I'd think that the change in b85a50b would cause something to break completely, not in a flaky manner. That test also doesn't have a great track record.
@cjihrig, it might be worth running multiple smaller (~100 times) jobs so it picks different pi2's, just to be sure it's fixed, as we have seen runs without failures before and maybe it's somehow dependent on the bot its running on.
Activity
mscdex commentedon Apr 9, 2016
Ref: #5346
Trott commentedon Apr 10, 2016
While looking at this test being flaky in February, it was discovered to fail always on a connection in the low 20s. In other words, if it failed, it failed on connection 22 or 23 or 24, but never on 16 or 36 or 46 or 59 or...
Which was very odd...
And now it seems that we're seeing that number creep lower resulting in increased flakiness on Pi 2 devices. I have no explanation. It's really weird.
/cc @nodejs/build @rvagg
Trott commentedon Apr 11, 2016
Again: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-binary-arm/1681/RUN_SUBSET=3,nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/tapTestReport/test.tap-53/
Ugh. Not sure what to do. Bringing it down to 12 or so would probably fix it, but it would seem that in another month, we'd likely be facing the same issue again.
Trott commentedon Apr 11, 2016
cc @nodejs/testing
mscdex commentedon Apr 15, 2016
Again: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-binary-arm/1727/RUN_SUBSET=2,nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/console
santigimeno commentedon Apr 15, 2016
@Trott Would it be worth stress testing the test with the source code we had in February, just to check whether it's a problem in the code or in the raspberry bots?
Trott commentedon Apr 15, 2016
@santigimeno I suppose that's worth a shot.
And, another one: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-binary-arm/1728/RUN_SUBSET=2,nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/tapTestReport/test.tap-53/
Trott commentedon Apr 15, 2016
And another: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-binary-arm/1723/RUN_SUBSET=2,nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/console
I suppose it's superfluous to document them all here as the test is now failing so often.
Trott commentedon Apr 15, 2016
Per @santigimeno's suggestion, here are three CI stress tests:
Trott commentedon Apr 15, 2016
And one more, also at @santigimeno's suggestion:
Trott commentedon Apr 15, 2016
Confounding results: Previous version of the test (that used 100 connections) failed, of course.
But no failures on any of the other stress tests, including current master.
Maybe its flakiness is dependent on other things going on on the network or something? I mean, it shouldn't be, right? Maybe confirm that the test is using localhost and not something odd like the machine's networked IP or (would this next one even work?) a broadcast address or something...
Trott commentedon Apr 16, 2016
Continues to fail with alarming frequency. Running CI stress test against master. https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/596/nodes=pi2-raspbian-wheezy/console
22 remaining items
Trott commentedon Apr 17, 2016
Tests confirm that 757fbac is the last good commit and b85a50b is the first bad one. Now the questions are:
/cc @rvagg @cjihrig
cjihrig commentedon Apr 18, 2016
Does this only happen on a specific subset of the Pi2s?
I'd think that the change in b85a50b would cause something to break completely, not in a flaky manner. That test also doesn't have a great track record.
santigimeno commentedon Apr 18, 2016
FWIW. I run 4 stress test jobs with current master, reverting the suspect commit and they all passed:
Trott commentedon Apr 19, 2016
@cjihrig asked:
Nope, I'm afraid not, at least not as far as I've been able to tell.
cjihrig commentedon Apr 19, 2016
Trying a partial revert of b85a50b. Stress test at https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/655/ with the
ADDRCONFIGflag added back.santigimeno commentedon Apr 19, 2016
@cjihrig, it might be worth running multiple smaller (~100 times) jobs so it picks different pi2's, just to be sure it's fixed, as we have seen runs without failures before and maybe it's somehow dependent on the bot its running on.
Trott commentedon Apr 20, 2016
Smaller series of stress tests on @cjihrig's partial revert per @santigimeno's suggestion:
Trott commentedon Apr 20, 2016
They all came back green!
net: set ADDRCONFIG DNS hint in connections
net: set ADDRCONFIG DNS hint in connections