342170 - Update tinderbox so we can get the patch for bug 338087 included

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(mozilla.org Graveyard :: Server Operations, task, P1)

Description

[Adam Guthrie]

The version of tinderbox that tinderbox.m.o is running needs to be updated in order that we get the patch for bug 338087 included in it.

Comment 1

[Aravind Gottipati [:aravind]]

Please put in more information here like what you would like it upgraded to, where do we get it from and stuff like that.  Also please keep in mind that this is a RHEL 2.1 server, so if you have dependencies on newer versions of software, things may not work.

Comment 2

[Adam Guthrie]

timeless implied that justdave knows how to do this. Assigning to him.

Comment 3

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Dave, any chance to get tbox updated soon ;)

Comment 4

[Justin Fitzhugh]

Per comment #1, we are still waiting on documentation in this bug to proceed.

Comment 5

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Currently tbox creates javascript code which doesn't work in the latest
trunk builds (nor in Opera...). That is the reason why in bug 338087
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/tinderbox/showbuilds.cgi was updated to
generate proper javascript. So if somehow that file could be updated.

Comment 6

[Robert Helmer [:rhelmer]]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Please put in more information here like what you would like it upgraded to,
> where do we get it from and stuff like that.  Also please keep in mind that
> this is a RHEL 2.1 server, so if you have dependencies on newer versions of
> software, things may not work.
> 

Currently tinderbox server is on mecha, you can get tinderbox from CVS HEAD in mozilla/src/webtools/tinderbox/

Let me know if you need more info, or want a package instead of just grabbing CVS source.. we don't do actual releases of tinderbox, we can discuss if that'd be useful though.

The change is just some javascript, and so should not introduce external dependencies.

Comment 7

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

This is SOP stuff, extra info wasn't really needed, I'm usually the one that does it these days.  I need to get the procedure documented on the sysadmin wiki one of these days :)

However, this needs to happen during a maintenance window, and it's completely blocked on bug 334592, which needs to be fixed first.  Not sure if morgamic is still working on it or not, he's got a full copy of production on chameleon somewhere to try to sort it all out.  If someone else wants to pitch in and help him I'm sure we can make some arrangements to pass out a couple more copies.  I'm betting on it being about a week's worth of work (or at least a day or two if that's all you work on).

Comment 8

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

I accept thy challenge.

Comment 9

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

OK, all the checkins this was waiting on are done, it just needs to be deployed now, so back in my queue.

Comment 10

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

See bug 343292 for additional details on status

Comment 11

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

I emailed build a few days ago asking for signoff on this and bonsai before pointing DNS at it.

Last I heard, they want bug 354977 fixed first (or at least that's what ispiked says on IRC).

For the record, this is available for testing at:
http://tinderbox-stage.mozilla.org/

Comment 12

[Justin Fitzhugh]

Please take a look at this - we plan on migrating it in 1 week if we don't hear an complaints.

Comment 13

[Robert Helmer [:rhelmer]]

(In reply to comment #12)
> Please take a look at this - we plan on migrating it in 1 week if we don't hear
> an complaints.
> 

There seems to be a lag of ~10 minutes between when reports show up on tinderbox and when they show up on tinderbox-stage .. is that expected?

Comment 14

[aja+bugzilla]

Been looking at new tinderbox status page, and it's not showing C's, for example. Perhaps fallout from workarounds for bonsai DoS a while back?

Comment 15

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

(In reply to comment #13)
> There seems to be a lag of ~10 minutes between when reports show up on
> tinderbox and when they show up on tinderbox-stage .. is that expected?

No, that's not expected.  I would expect a delay of maybe 10 or 15 seconds, since the mail goes to tinderbox and gets forwarded to tinderbox-stage from there.  Point it out to me when you see it happening if you could...

(In reply to comment #14)
> Been looking at new tinderbox status page, and it's not showing C's, for
> example. Perhaps fallout from workarounds for bonsai DoS a while back?

Yes.  Bonsai is too freaking resource-intensive, and you guys have too many tinderbox clients out there reporting in.  Every time tinderbox receives a mail from a client, it shells out to bonsai to grab the checkins on that branch from the last two days.  We get on average 30 tinderbox clients check in per minute (that's average, it varies from 10 to 60 in any given minute).  That 2 day checkin query on bonsai typically takes 5 or 10 seconds to run anyway, then imagine it getting run 60 times a minute.  Then multiply it by 2 for tinderbox and tinderbox-stage both doing it, and you can see where this is going.

Comment 16

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

(In reply to comment #13)
> There seems to be a lag of ~10 minutes between when reports show up on
> tinderbox and when they show up on tinderbox-stage .. is that expected?

Was this based on the timestamps on the display rather than physical observation?  The clock on dm-webtools01 was about 10 minutes off the other day because ntpd wasn't running.  That got corrected sometime yesterday.

Comment 17

[J. Paul Reed [:preed]]

The original bug seems fixed; don't know why I got this.

The migration is another bug/issue, I think.

Resolving.