From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BDEDC4332F for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:28:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F33F3CBFCA for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:28:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A71B83CBFA9 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:28:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FFD81A00CC1 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:28:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3C8722B45; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:28:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1670599696; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fJH5VjuJgFLFlikc/qqOoqi2PrLkPZzqu/3CatJe1pw=; b=MuO/OO8SHIQWIY+b6/qRBFvk0jhdZQA0zaztJhNVDoig8FvtQNP92Xszx8wBCFdNEGYj53 pynmBSsNhe/4isv62PEpBQS8tNcm9rKHZxWfp4CS1ZQo7qrI+aK+w4UBqr28vsXM8ZmZr9 jTiDIAOpcKpGtoAAAiSLkLXlZQLpwOc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1670599696; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fJH5VjuJgFLFlikc/qqOoqi2PrLkPZzqu/3CatJe1pw=; b=UNrVx4I0b25IExc1MMCQRhnsubHpIKZGZoDNhP+mtNV2onEpr702q4btDadabxbgGYDBoH Vfe+orMGPz8g+wBQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F1BD13597; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id E+ATJRBUk2MULAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 09 Dec 2022 15:28:16 +0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:28:05 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Richard Palethorpe Message-ID: References: <20221206115329.17760-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <20221206115329.17760-2-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <87edtctuos.fsf@suse.de> <87a640trg1.fsf@suse.de> <87o7seqlry.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87o7seqlry.fsf@suse.de> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] fill_fs: Ensure written data is not easily compressed X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > > The test is supposed to test what happens when filesystem is altmost > > full and being written to, which may trigger all kinds of corner cases. > > In that sense it makes sense to randomize the access patterns a bit so > > that we have higher chances of utilizing different code paths. But of > > course the question where should we stop in randomizing things and what > > makes sense and what does not. > > I think there are multiple scenarious which are totally different. > > For example, Redis uses an append only file (AOF) and IIRC you can > choose to batch writes for performance at the expense of data > integrity. It's common for the AOF to have it's own volume. > > OTOH if we have a classic server with 1000s of daemons running, then we > can expect writes to happen in parallel and be random. > > I'd be in favor of trying to test these things separately and to keep > each scenario as simple (and reproducible) as possible. I think mixing > together different access patterns is better handled by fuzzing. I suppose. Or we can run the test a few times with different access patters and do not mix them in a single run. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp