From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id
	n1FIheOB088572 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:43:41 -0600
Received: from mx2.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CB7451940602
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.redhat.com (mx2.redhat.com [66.187.237.31]) by cuda.sgi.com
	with ESMTP id yQmxDENqZKSUULaz for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49986233.6050600@sandeen.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:42:59 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add "quick" group
References: <20090214164245.GD19813@infradead.org>	<49972260.4000702@sandeen.net>
	<20090215182153.GA31179@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090215182153.GA31179@infradead.org>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Good plan, couple comments:
>>
>> should quick only be a subset auto tests or are they orthogonal?
> 
> Just a subset of auto, yes.
> 
>> A few tests you've flagged as quick don't met the 20s criteria on my
>> box, just FWIW; may be filesystem-size specific:
>>
>> 013 57
> 
> We need this one for sure.

agreed

>> 028 23
>> 031 21
>> 049 36
>> 075 36
>> 076 56
>> 078 20
>> 091 26
>> 112 38
>> 113 55
>> 178 363
>>
>> Most are probably close enough, but 178 looks nasty - seems to be
>> xfs_repair that's taking so long.  These are running on 100G partitions,
>> though :)
> 
> 178 only takes 16 seconds for me, running on 10G partitions.

interesting that a 10x size growth makes a 22x time growth.

> I'm fine removing tests, and 178 would be the first candidate, maybe 076
> and 113, too.

Fine by me to leave them in, too, not a big deal - though maybe not 178.
 Just wanted to point out that some of this is probably
fs-size-dependent.  It'd be neat to have this somehow run based on
what's in the timestamp file, though that requires an initial seed.

I'd just drop 178 and call it good for now.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs