From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3781CC433F5 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-625-iIb-fk8PPG-HX0BXtod4sg-1; Sat, 08 Jan 2022 15:06:04 -0500 X-MC-Unique: iIb-fk8PPG-HX0BXtod4sg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B37D1853020; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50AED101E59D; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4F64BB7C; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 208K5mUb012052 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:05:48 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 08EDD2166B13; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast03.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 036F82166B26 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:05:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF996811E7F for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.17.12]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-397-TlScb3RrOkqoWggL5UelrQ-1; Sat, 08 Jan 2022 15:05:43 -0500 X-MC-Unique: TlScb3RrOkqoWggL5UelrQ-1 X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from gecko ([46.223.151.24]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb105 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MvKbj-1mF0Si1UDh-00r490; Sat, 08 Jan 2022 20:53:01 +0100 Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 19:52:59 +0000 From: Lukas Straub To: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <20220108195259.33e9bdf0@gecko> In-Reply-To: <0535d6c3-dec3-fb49-3707-709e8d26b538@gmx.com> References: <0535d6c3-dec3-fb49-3707-709e8d26b538@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:AGazrWY5rmVs3KLflW/ztv0A9Mbn86f0R+FugVm+ZYTHp7FWmhP UvJZ7Mc6s9oUNuBwc+domY47DVsmzp1hcddFyhihrJZm94jzAM/cdMUybsVRXFVs1ix97Gr yUM0jx4iKxPulgBfO3FqcjTf+8YUYTlwb+qhzXu6GDGY4VsOiMiFlnsMswKbB4rsGTkCp3i U3YHoiSxmX6OtjPgyUEKw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:jZMOPEGuQns=:o3yJjUPTAGXGKKJAp21WRk DuTLN33rjZSBFyxFsWyy/56bPXPS/Vmp0Gdy6qI+ozxN00NOGSlzWhPM+lxLMXSJYwGqjNfwR LJeiRo1muWWUmH1CDWhjIASexXYw4gqtyiNeor8uCQ2OxckkPDZexmczDTbHdgU12kXxi+s2t t5qoC9YsUs+Uo0KWscuCefVmRokJuHaElDedy1vGVJ34FJhLuoWBz8OPQ70GtPcy964F3G2M2 t1EPEGuPA86IhOQ7e45RhLUw7icX1H8/7o6dO5cx30dtOeQuEKilpyfZBYkDFTGojbQaZzHoT /Q+VGhEBVVTjgJSdyjeby/8TgI032n8DuK7jCJaDdrFHSHcGurqCZRlsfrMjUbKoCUIgbj/Wg 2WbNZbNb5AP3Ph2DCrakZugqKTZFdtu5kI6s0nJOeaPgIX6CiqKwF2nxW+tfeevojIkFMRZ7z wfWssiEdHvki5ghhK1K0I5QsQrSfQlD5yD8OIc71WmLn/zuIMt/x+hRTD6/7Q1rARIm2n0v32 vUFacJ4kS/oMerGENpZjYmY72RyvnPTBPxx+qzDlZ2X5pO+FGBUC6h+x1GPqEIXn0a5wVhfBW NBNyNtwNZmFmWssIIj3aa1jgWoKlMwefnJER2s1ApSqhGeJ27IB8lL1fliOptIilOscnXDuXa P1CLgEv/NQZLhSCYXggKKudTohh5HcevFCSNf3uodv4b6TOZ1ocbeHmiR1cDOLXAxiH/D1gQs 5Srxtvnh0U+No7GdFvvg25Cv1XbwP8vy9hLHP1P3ruhm7C+fpdF+SAfCCTh8QomRdgjIAkkoc xqjqDvcPPj3sAqpqsQS3hwEMpy+LYascgAU6/MnUhWx2ZfJi6uSpy8qddhO5mRV0ACmh74AZX OowKOy1QULtr+C3skputUCbVbWaWU9qP323NESI48pCr2FiabHG+fb+NhKxNaenegoqL40Po1 BgJ09lycKGDpuqM4wN58qCQI0PTlYMuvFygJ65n/O0v/CXPmrifgerLowIEh/MSZZIQ3z5EXu UWjtHdBTcZOe/hPb6lXnBwLAKVuPoEUoFkSke1XJXtv3c108nl7PlJqpptO48HhCzAyrwRBpd xQhKWJCyJdVnI8= X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com id 208K5mUb012052 X-loop: dm-devel@redhat.com Cc: Linux FS Devel , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Proper way to test RAID456? X-BeenThere: dm-devel@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: device-mapper development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CC'ing linux-raid mailing list, where md raid development happens. dm-raid is just a different interface to md raid. On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 10:30:56 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > Hi, > > Recently I'm working on refactor btrfs raid56 (with long term objective > to add proper journal to solve write-hole), and the coverage of current > fstests for btrfs RAID56 is not that ideal. > > Is there any project testing dm/md RAID456 for things like > re-silvering/write-hole problems? > > And how you dm guys do the tests for stacked RAID456? > > I really hope to learn some tricks from the existing, tried-and-true > RAID456 implementations, and hopefully to solve the known write-hole > bugs in btrfs. > > Thanks, > Qu > > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel > -- -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel