Re: Bcachefs testing needed

[Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 10:32:14AM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
> 
> On 11/05/2016 12:05 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Chris, Marcin, anyone else who wants to help out - the bcachefs-testing branch
> > needs testing before I merge in those patches.
> > 
> > Chris was seeing filesystem corruption with the foreground btree merging
> > patches, and I still haven't figured out what that was (although I have fixed
> > some possible culprits), so please don't run this on anything with real data
> > until it's seen some more testing. This branch also doesn't have btree node
> > merging yet - it's got the btree locking changes, and some new work making
> > iterators more rigorous and tightening up invariants. Once we're sure that stuff
> > is all good I'll push out btree node merging again.
> > 
> > And I definitely could use more testers - testing is getting to be a significant
> > bottleneck these days.
> 
> Last I checked, the bcachefs came as an entire specific kernel tree, and not
> patch(sets) against kernels.  I'd be looking to test against 4.4 and
> possibly 4.8, as we also have our own patches we need to apply and I don't
> want to rebase everything to test this.   Patches would definitely be easier
> for me to apply and test with.   4.4 is our current kernel, 3.18 is our
> legacy, and 4.8 is our experimental.
> 
> Happy to try to generate a patch if you can tell me what tree you based it
> on.

bcache-dev is currently based on 4.8 - if you checkout that branch with git,
'git diff v4.8' will give you a patch.

I do have changes to core kernel code, if that doesn't apply cleanly let me know
where the conflicts are and we can decide what to do then.

> FWIW:  We've got lots of kit we can test it against (large multi-disk
> servers, lots of SSD, etc.) in our lab.

Cool. More performance testing would be particularly helpful :)