From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pat LaVarre Subject: Re: fs test suite Date: 07 Oct 2003 12:54:57 -0600 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1065552897.8172.28.camel@patehci2> References: <20031007071755.72cf7513.rddunlap@osdl.org> <20031007101602.658d6638.rddunlap@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: zachary@cse.ucsc.edu, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from email-out2.iomega.com ([147.178.1.83]:35247 "EHLO email.iomega.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262640AbTJGSzJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:55:09 -0400 To: rddunlap@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <20031007101602.658d6638.rddunlap@osdl.org> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > Are you looking for a test (suite) that tests > fs metadata moreso than fs IO? People have > asked for that a few times, but I don't know > of one that is made for that. May I ask you to elaborate? I'm not yet confident I understand the question. I mean to ask how do I increase my confidence that 2.4.x and 2.6.x udf.ko will read back to me what I wrote thru it. I figure that mixes together metadata and data, since the metadata tells me how much and from where I read back my data. I see my semi-private linux_udf@hpesjro.fc.hp.com thread titled "zeroes read back more often than appended" says a write-read-compare test as trivial as fopen-fwrite-fclose doesn't yet work. I blame that either on my own bonehead newbie errors i.e. illegit test setup, else low-hanging bugs. I'm hear wondering, can I easily look for other low-hanging fruit. > http... Thank you! I will pursue: http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/cruft/ http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/ http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ http://www.iozone.org http://www.google.com/search?q=postmark+linux http://www.connectathon.org/ http://www.google.com/search?q=bonnie+linux Pat LaVarre