From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AF57F4E for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 19:23:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD2E304048 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 17:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qenh1LXnZdXrFynW for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 17:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:20:37 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] xfstests: fixes for the free inode btree Message-ID: <20140521002037.GL18954@dastard> References: <1399050842-19633-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <20140502234831.GG26353@dastard> <20140505113443.GA11622@laptop.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140505113443.GA11622@laptop.bfoster> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 07:34:43AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 09:48:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 01:13:57PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This series is a few xfstests fixes and addons for the finobt. Patch 1 > > > fixes xfs/030 to work correctly on finobt-enabled filesystems. Patches 2 > > > and 3 add support for finobt-oriented tests via require functions and > > > repair filter updates. Patch 4 adds a new test for targeted repair of > > > finobt filesystems. Patch 5 adds a stress test that creates/modifies a > > > sparsely allocated set of inodes to effectively exercise the finobt in > > > conjunction with an fsstress workload. > > > > > > xfs/010 runs very quickly. xfs/013 runs for 5-10 minutes on my smallish > > > VM running against a single spindle, so I've been back and forth on > > > whether it should be part of the auto group. Thoughts, reviews, flames > > > appreciated... > > > > 5-10 minutes is probably right at the edge for auto, but I think > > that most people won't be testing this any time soon. Hence I'd > > include it by default in the auto group, and if people complain > > about the runtime when they start testing it, we can revist that > > choice. FWIW, I'd also include it in the metadata group so that it > > gets exercised when people run that group.... > > > > Ok, sounds good. It actually runs closer to 5 minutes than 10 when I > simply move to a separate (still single) spindle, so it's probably not > that bad. IIRC, it's still probably not the longest running test I've > seen in auto. I believe you have an SSD test setup, so I'm curious how > the workload looks if you get a a chance to run it there. :) FWIW, just running xfs/013 on 2 sata drives in hw RAID1 takes 80-90s to run xfs/013, so this is fine. However, it runs out of disk space on a 4GB ramdisk, so it still might need some tweaking... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs