* proposed ext4 test matrix
@ 2011-05-16 17:49 Theodore Ts'o
2011-05-17 1:35 ` Keith Mannthey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2011-05-16 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
Per the discusison on the ext4 concall, here's a proposed ext4 test
matrix.
- Ted
P.S. There was something else I said I would send out, but I didn't
write it down and I can't remember what it was. Can someone remind me?
Thanks!!
4k blocksize, no journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext2)
1k blocksize, no journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext2)
4k blocksize, journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext3)
1k blocksize, journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext3)
4k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents
1k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents
4k blocksize, nojournal, delalloc, extents
4k blocksize, journal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
1k blocksize, journal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
4k blocksize, nojournal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
4k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents, quota enabled
1k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents, quota enabled
(*) requires master/next branch e2fsprogs; by this I mean creating a
file system with the 64-bit feature enabled, not necessarily creating
a 40TB file system!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed ext4 test matrix
2011-05-16 17:49 proposed ext4 test matrix Theodore Ts'o
@ 2011-05-17 1:35 ` Keith Mannthey
2011-05-17 5:10 ` Andreas Dilger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keith Mannthey @ 2011-05-17 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: linux-ext4
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 13:49 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Per the discusison on the ext4 concall, here's a proposed ext4 test
> matrix.
>
> - Ted
>
> P.S. There was something else I said I would send out, but I didn't
> write it down and I can't remember what it was. Can someone remind me?
> Thanks!!
>
>
> 4k blocksize, no journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext2)
> 1k blocksize, no journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext2)
> 4k blocksize, journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext3)
> 1k blocksize, journal, nodealloc, noextents (ext3)
> 4k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents
> 1k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents
> 4k blocksize, nojournal, delalloc, extents
> 4k blocksize, journal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
> 1k blocksize, journal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
> 4k blocksize, nojournal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
> 4k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents, quota enabled
> 1k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents, quota enabled
What tests are we wanting to run?
Keith Mannthey
LTC Filesystems
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed ext4 test matrix
2011-05-17 1:35 ` Keith Mannthey
@ 2011-05-17 5:10 ` Andreas Dilger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Dilger @ 2011-05-17 5:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keith Mannthey; +Cc: Theodore Ts'o, linux-ext4
On May 16, 2011, at 19:35, Keith Mannthey wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 13:49 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> Per the discusison on the ext4 concall, here's a proposed ext4 test
>> matrix.
>>
>> - Ted
>>
>> P.S. There was something else I said I would send out, but I didn't
>> write it down and I can't remember what it was. Can someone remind me?
>> Thanks!!
>>
>>
>> 4k blocksize, no journal, nodealloc, noextents (-t ext2)
>> 1k blocksize, no journal, nodealloc, noextents (-t ext2)
>> 4k blocksize, journal, nodealloc, noextents (-t ext3)
>> 1k blocksize, journal, nodealloc, noextents (-t ext3)
>> 4k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents (-t ext4)
>> 1k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents (-t ext4)
>> 4k blocksize, nojournal, delalloc, extents
>> 4k blocksize, journal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents (-t ext4)
>> 1k blocksize, journal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents (-t ext4)
>> 4k blocksize, nojournal, 64bits(*), delalloc, extents
>> 4k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents, quota enabled (-t ext4)
>> 1k blocksize, journal, delalloc, extents, quota enabled (-t ext4)
>
> What tests are we wanting to run?
On the call Ted said it would be desirable to run xfstests for all of these
configurations. Since xfstests already runs quite a number of smaller tests
like fsx, etc, this would definitely be a very good smoke test for the most
common configurations.
I added "-t" to the ext2/ext3/ext4 configs above, since without those options
the features enabled for the various filesystems will not be the same as they
are formatted by default. For example, with the default "-t ext4" a number
of other features like "flex_bg", "uninit_bg", "huge_file", "dir_nlink" and
"extra_isize" are enabled, but they shouldn't be enabled for ext2/ext3.
Cheers, Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-17 5:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-16 17:49 proposed ext4 test matrix Theodore Ts'o
2011-05-17 1:35 ` Keith Mannthey
2011-05-17 5:10 ` Andreas Dilger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).