Bug 1217879

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1213066 +++

Description of problem:

The following test fails at random in regression test runs.

    tests/performance/open-behind.t  
      Happens in master - Failed test:  17

Root cause points to time involved in performing a graph switch on the client.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

--- Additional comment from Anand Avati on 2015-04-18 09:27:06 EDT ---

REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/10293 (tests: Await for graph switch before testing open fop count) posted (#1) for review on master by Vijay Bellur (vbellur)

--- Additional comment from Anand Avati on 2015-04-19 01:36:12 EDT ---

REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/10293 (tests: Await for graph switch before testing open fop count) posted (#2) for review on master by Vijay Bellur (vbellur)

--- Additional comment from Anand Avati on 2015-04-29 10:03:13 EDT ---

COMMIT: http://review.gluster.org/10293 committed in master by Raghavendra Bhat (raghavendra) 
------
commit 797e923da9f5f1eca4a51da177b1a7cbef75b5ad
Author: Vijay Bellur <vbellur>
Date:   Sat Apr 18 18:40:55 2015 +0530

    tests: Await for graph switch before testing open fop count
    
    In performance/open-behind.t, a test for open fop reaching the brick is done by
    switching off open-behind and performing a read operation. If the read operation
    is performed before a graph switch, the read happens on the old graph and hence
    open does not get accounted in the brick.
    
    To overcome this EXPECT_WITHIN 10 seconds has now been added to ensure that a
    graph switch has happened. The read operation happens subsequently after the
    graph switch.
    
    Cleaned up a "No volumes present" message from stderr while doing this.
    
    Change-Id: I1e1c0d7e4bd2057520b4dd46157d18f30837b8c9
    BUG: 1213066
    Signed-off-by: Vijay Bellur <vbellur>
    Reviewed-on: http://review.gluster.org/10293
    Reviewed-by: Krishnan Parthasarathi <kparthas>
    Reviewed-by: Raghavendra Bhat <raghavendra>
    Tested-by: Raghavendra Bhat <raghavendra>