Is this warning expected?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is this warning expected?

Shai Erera
Hi

I ran SOLR tests today and I've noticed this print appearing several times:

    [junit]
    [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
    [junit] 14.okt.2010 12:14:28 org.apache.solr.common.util.ConcurrentLRUCache finalize
    [junit] SEVERE: ConcurrentLRUCache was not destroyed prior to finalize(), indicates a bug -- POSSIBLE RESOURCE LEAK!!!
    [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------

Is this expected? Can it be ignored?

Also, not sure where it's coming from, but notice this typo:

14.okt.2010 --> okt instead of oct I assume. Is it something defined in SOLR code?

Shai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is this warning expected?

Robert Muir
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I ran SOLR tests today and I've noticed this print appearing several times:
>
>     [junit]
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
>     [junit] 14.okt.2010 12:14:28
> org.apache.solr.common.util.ConcurrentLRUCache finalize
>     [junit] SEVERE: ConcurrentLRUCache was not destroyed prior to
> finalize(), indicates a bug -- POSSIBLE RESOURCE LEAK!!!
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>
> Is this expected? Can it be ignored?
>
> Also, not sure where it's coming from, but notice this typo:
>
> 14.okt.2010 --> okt instead of oct I assume. Is it something defined in SOLR
> code?

I can't answer the first question (lots of tests give me this
ConcurrentLRUCache warning, but the date format is because we switch
up the locale when running tests, so sometimes you see SCHWERWIEGEND,
GRAVE, etc instead of SEVERE, and also different date formats.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is this warning expected?

Shai Erera
Thanks for the explanation Robert !

Shai

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I ran SOLR tests today and I've noticed this print appearing several times:
>
>     [junit]
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
>     [junit] 14.okt.2010 12:14:28
> org.apache.solr.common.util.ConcurrentLRUCache finalize
>     [junit] SEVERE: ConcurrentLRUCache was not destroyed prior to
> finalize(), indicates a bug -- POSSIBLE RESOURCE LEAK!!!
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>
> Is this expected? Can it be ignored?
>
> Also, not sure where it's coming from, but notice this typo:
>
> 14.okt.2010 --> okt instead of oct I assume. Is it something defined in SOLR
> code?

I can't answer the first question (lots of tests give me this
ConcurrentLRUCache warning, but the date format is because we switch
up the locale when running tests, so sometimes you see SCHWERWIEGEND,
GRAVE, etc instead of SEVERE, and also different date formats.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is this warning expected?

Yonik Seeley-2-2
In reply to this post by Shai Erera
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I ran SOLR tests today and I've noticed this print appearing several times:
>
>     [junit]
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
>     [junit] 14.okt.2010 12:14:28
> org.apache.solr.common.util.ConcurrentLRUCache finalize
>     [junit] SEVERE: ConcurrentLRUCache was not destroyed prior to
> finalize(), indicates a bug -- POSSIBLE RESOURCE LEAK!!!
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>
> Is this expected? Can it be ignored?

I think these are all probably test bugs that don't properly close resources.
When I did a full "ant test" I saw these in DirectUpdateHandlerTest...
*but* when I ran that test alone, I didn't see the warnings.

I'll try and take another look after we get the test logging straitened out.

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is this warning expected?

Robert Muir
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Yonik Seeley
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll try and take another look after we get the test logging straitened out.
>

we can turn back on forking for each solr test to workaround it? I
don't understand the logging and this would make tests much slower,
but logging would work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is this warning expected?

Yonik Seeley-2-2
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Yonik Seeley
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'll try and take another look after we get the test logging straitened out.
>>
>
> we can turn back on forking for each solr test to workaround it?

I just tried that - doesn't seem to work.
More tests have INFO logging, but many still do not.

I did this:
-           forkmode="perBatch"
+           fork="true"

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]