* 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).