From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sergeyb@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp52.i.mail.ru (smtp52.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.112])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83B64445320
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:56:59 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:56:58 +0300
From: Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200717105658.GA82240@pony.bronevichok.ru>
References: <cover.1594766457.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1594766457.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 0/2] Qsync flaky tests,
	next iteration
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Thanks for the patch!

I have spend some time to reproduce an original issue described in a
commit message and failed. On the other hand both tests with applied
patches passed 1000 iterations in concurrent mode (-j 10) without fails.

LGTM

On 00:44 Wed 15 Jul , Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> The tests keep failing, each time in a new way. The patchset
> attempts to fix them again. Worth mentioning, that I couldn't
> reproduce the fails in the issues, and the fixes are based on my
> assumptions + on the passed CI (failed, but in other tests).
> 
> How 5168 managed to happen I can't even imagine, but the flaky
> test case is reworked in this patchset anyway, it was incorrect.
> 
> I suspect these fails depend on disk speed somehow, not on CPU.
> Especially looking at how 5167 failed. On my machine
> reproducibility seems to be so low, that I couldn't get it, even
> with tens of workers.
> 
> Branch: http://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/gerold103/gh-5167-5168-qsync-flaky
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5167
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5168