From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under Linux Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:44:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1cd97490-e650-d98b-466a-095292dc5b98@gmail.com> <58751E90.5090306@gmail.com> <20170111165241.yavdwc57v6yodx7g@kernel.org> <587704FC.6030701@suse.com> <4eb83aa0-6245-d499-f18a-e8456aad9f98@gmail.com> <6504747e-c49e-dc54-64a6-bce2220daffc@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: zhilong , Bruce Dubbs , "Brown, Neil" Cc: Guoqing Jiang , Shaohua Li , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" , LKML List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 02/13/2017 12:54 AM, zhilong wrote: > On 02/13/2017 01:08 PM, zhilong wrote: >> Hi, Jes; >> On 01/13/2017 12:41 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >>> On 01/11/17 23:24, Guoqing Jiang wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/12/2017 12:59 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>>> On 01/11/17 11:52, Shaohua Li wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:49:04AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>>>>> Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>>>>>> I am pleased to announce the availability of >>>>>>>> mdadm version 4.0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is available at the usual places: >>>>>>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/ >>>>>>>> and via git at >>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git >>>>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/mdadm/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The update in major version number primarily indicates this is a >>>>>>>> release by it's new maintainer. In addition it contains a large >>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>> of fixes in particular for IMSM RAID and clustered RAID >>>>>>>> support. In >>>>>>>> addition this release includes support for IMSM 4k sector drives, >>>>>>>> failfast and better documentation for journaled RAID. >>>>>>> Thank you for the new release. Unfortunately I get 9 failures >>>>>>> running the >>>>>>> test suite: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tests/00raid1... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/07autoassemble... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/07changelevels... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/07revert-grow... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/07revert-inplace... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/07testreshape5... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/10ddf-fail-twice... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/20raid5journal... FAILED >>>>>>> tests/10ddf-incremental-wrong-order... FAILED >>>>>> Yep, several tests usually fail. It appears some checks aren't always >>>>>> good. At >>>>>> least the 'check' function for reshape/resync isn't reliable in my >>>>>> test, I saw >>>>>> 07changelevelintr fails frequently. >>>>> That is my experience as well - some of them are affected by the >>>>> kernel >>>>> version too. We probably need to look into making them more reliable. >>>> If possible, it could be a potential topic for lsf/mm raid >>>> discussion as >>>> Coly suggested >>>> in previous mail. >>>> >>>> Is current test can run the test for different raid level, say, "./test >>>> --raidtype=raid1" could >>>> execute all the *r1* tests, does it make sense to do it if we don't >>>> support it now. >>> We could have a discussion about this at LSF/MM, if someone is willing >>> to sponsor getting it accepted and we can get the right people there. >>> >>> Note that the test suite also allows you to run all the 01 tests by >>> specifying ./test 01. I do like to see the test suite improved and made >>> more resilient. >> I'm sorry for my late response, I'm just back to work today from >> vacation. In the past months, I learned and worked for cluster-md >> feature, >> and I have draft one test suit for cluster-md feature. please refer to >> https://github.com/zhilongliu/clustermd-autotest >> I'm very willing to do something for improving mdadm testing part, >> also wanna improve cluster-md test suit, welcome all comments for it. >> > I would keep making cluster-md test scripts more and more stable, and > finally apply to integrate into mdadm test part. :-) I'd very much like to see work to improve the test suite, so that is great. Once you have the test suites ready, please post patches and I shall be happy to implement them. Please make sure to test that they don't break if people haven't built cluster support into their kernels. Cheers, Jes