From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5BE801D for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:04:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB264AC001 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 14:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FUHNRFJ0CtbYjVhn for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:04:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5133C900.9050300@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:04:48 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2 References: <1362269150-21478-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <20130303011917.GI23616@dastard> <20130303100254.500b076f@spider.haslach.nod.at> In-Reply-To: <20130303100254.500b076f@spider.haslach.nod.at> 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: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 3/3/13 3:02 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:19:17 +1100 > schrieb Dave Chinner : > >> On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 01:05:50AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> We cannot run fsck.ocfs2 because the file system >>> is most likely mounted on another node. >> >> This patch means that ocfs2 filesystems are *never* checked for >> consistency, even when you are testing them with exclusive local >> access. That defeats a primary function of xfstests - ensuring that >> the tests run do no corrupt the filesystem. >> >> Besides, why would you be running xfstests on a filesystem that is >> mounted on multiple nodes? Yes, ocfs2 is a cluster filesystem, but >> xfstests is designed to test local filesystem behaviour and is >> completely cluster naive. Hence having multiple nodes mount the >> filesystem that is being tested by xfstests does not serve any >> purpose at all. Further, turning off consistency checking for those >> that are running ocfs2 testing on single nodes means that testing is >> now mostly wasted as the majority of problems that can occur are no >> longer detectable.... > > Using xfstests I was able to trigger dlm issues in ocfs2. > I ran xfstests on one node and other nodes had it mounted too. Just for my own education, how does that happen? Were you testing on filesystems already configured into a cluster, or did the cluster somehow pick up your newly-defined test fileystems and mount them? How does fsck.ocfs2 behave when you run it on one node, when the fs is mounted on others? Will it proceed w/ no knowledge of the fact that it's mounted elsewhere? -Eric > To ensure that fsck.ocfs2 will not corrupt the filesystem I've applied > this patch. > > If you don't like the patch I'm perfectly fine with that. > Maybe it makes more sense to add a feature to xfstests which unmounts > the ocfs2 filesystem on all nodes (using SSH), then it is allowed to > run fsck.ocfs2. > > Thanks, > //richard > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs