Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 35810: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 08:17 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 04.03.15 at 04:26, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > flight 35810 xen-unstable real [real]
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/35810/ 
> > 
> > Regressions :-(
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> >  test-amd64-amd64-rumpuserxen-amd64  5 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-amd64-libvirt      5 xen-boot                  fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-pvh-intel  5 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel  5 xen-boot                fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd  5 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel  5 xen-boot          fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd  5 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-freebsd10-i386  5 xen-boot                fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  5 xen-boot             fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1  5 xen-boot      fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64  5 xen-boot      fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  5 xen-boot             fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  5 xen-boot           fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3  5 xen-boot                  fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1  5 xen-boot      fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3   5 xen-boot                  fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  5 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 
> > 34629
> 
> The several ones I looked at all have an undue delay after
> "Starting MTA:", which I assume was related to some
> infrastructure issue (and hence we should disregard).

Looks a lot like the old NTP issue, which was supposed to have been
fixed, but perhaps our internal NTP isn't especially more reliable than
the old pool.debian.org ones we were using before.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel