From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3414C23DE for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2025 01:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740790934; cv=none; b=HbymLv5X4ase2X+bJHtoLTuIS8wOKj0B3xjjdllZVDlagyPulgp0W9gkjeSPOxyHz0qvquFgQS3i8GxeuKVC09nVwZmQ9EOPDyeZpJlwu1gIo+PUGFyNOWP/efL2dwIRgL0Ne7TXA6KOI8Pw9xzkiohIiOEgUq1wt3TdfmO7doo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740790934; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7HCwmsqmBxfKDdLQkoqvAX2lPTWn6ADEecwyOZs6vLw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=k5ySZnp7p42hfaQnSucqdCd47/2DLLsmjZj7cJYON6lV4HLQquqPuSJXYJJfPtxrgGIWh8Ir5YDwD/nOAHe5owYT9GXNbqYZLTgfRud1GC3ZCgCMMJEzWXLWaRqizRTSRJkASdDS5NvOLzAeMpWyq06/ecJxrxiLkgS3HnpY2Bs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Received: from trampoline.thunk.org (pool-173-48-112-92.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.112.92]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 52111tcO012179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Feb 2025 20:01:55 -0500 Received: by trampoline.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 0844B2E010B; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 20:01:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 20:01:55 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: David Sterba , Zorro Lang , fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] fstests: for-next branch updated to v2025.02.23 Message-ID: <20250301010155.GA71970@mit.edu> References: <20250228123354.GE5777@twin.jikos.cz> <20250228173319.GG1124788@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250228173319.GG1124788@frogsfrogsfrogs> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 09:33:19AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Agreed. I would very much have liked to continue single-instance > testing in peace the same way I always have. There are things that > excite me that I would like to move onto; refactoring a large pile of > bash is NOT one of them. I'm also not particularly interested in check-parallel; the reason for this is that using a 64-CPU system is *expensive*. It's actually cheaper to kick off multiple VM's and then shard the tests across multiple VM's. It's cheaper to use a multiple small, cheaper VM's compared to a single large VM. Sure, having a fast wall clock time is kinda cool. But not everyone has access to -- or can afford -- a 64-CPU behemonth. (Either the cost of the server, or the cost of electricity / air conditioning --- I recently upgrading to an AMD Threadripper, although not a 64-CPU server, since I'm not that wealthy, and was shocked to find that it consumes 100W at *idle*.) > Before anyone gets any ideas -- there is no grand plan or collaboration > here. Chinner posted an RFC[1] and wrote: > > "This will probably take a bit of time, so I'd like to get the bug > fixes, improvements and infrastructure changes underway so I'm not > left carrying a huge patchset for months...." Yeah, I'll say that I'm a bit annoyed myself, since I've been carrying patches out of trees for *years* because Dave has objected that the patches didn't reach his high standards, and then the cr*p that was check-parallel got merged? Because he's an XFS architect? I can't help but think that there is a massive double standard.... > > It's not just me who observes that. It seems that BTRFS is not tested > > before release as thoroughly as other filesystems (probably just XFS). > > Admittedly, I only run ext4/btrfs in the default configurations. I only > learned yesterday about SCRATCH_DEV_POOL because Felipe called that out. I'm actually running ext4, xfs, btrfs, and f2fs on fs-next every day. I used to update to xfstests's for-next quite regularly. But given how destablized for-next got, I reduced the regularity of updating to the latest for-next, because I got busy and I didn't always have time to debug for-next breakages.... - Ted