| Message ID | 5036F1FB.80205@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:16:11AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: > Case 265 need 4 devices to test RAID10, so we need 4 or more devices not 2. > and it is better that these 4 devices are independent devices, especially > the 2nd last one, so we add independent device check to check the devices > in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL. I don't see any reason for requiring the devices to be independent. You're basically checking if the devices are on an MD device, which isn't really a check for indpendent devices. e.g. my 4 devices could be loopback devices with files all the in the same filesystem, or on a VM using images at that are all hosted on the same device, or LVM volumes on top of a single MD device, hardware lun, etc. They are most certainly not independent, but your test won't pick up any of them. Hence the test does not require the devices to be independent to run correctly. Sure, the test will run faster if each device is on an independent spindle, but it's not a requirement for test success or failure.... > diff --git a/common.rc b/common.rc > index 602513a..ede25fe 100644 > --- a/common.rc > +++ b/common.rc > @@ -1699,12 +1699,14 @@ _require_scratch_dev_pool() > _notrun "this test requires a valid \$SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" > fi > > - # btrfs test case needs 2 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure > + # btrfs test case needs 4 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure > # so fail it > + # common.config has moved the first device to SCRATCH_DEV, so > + # SCRATCH_DEV_POOL should have 3 or more disks. > case $FSTYP in > btrfs) > - if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 2 ]; then > - _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 2 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" > + if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 3 ]; then > + _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 4 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" > fi > ;; > *) Rather than changing this every time a new number of disks is required, change it so that the number of devices required by the test is passed as a parameter to _require_scratch_dev_pool. Cheers, Dave.
On fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:18:04 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:16:11AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >> Case 265 need 4 devices to test RAID10, so we need 4 or more devices not 2. >> and it is better that these 4 devices are independent devices, especially >> the 2nd last one, so we add independent device check to check the devices >> in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL. > > I don't see any reason for requiring the devices to be independent. README said we need independent devices. I think the reason is: Case 265 will remove/add the 2nd last device in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL, if this device is a partition of a device, not a independent device, it is easy to make a mistake for the users that the other partitions are used while doing the test. If so, the name of the device will be changed, and it will make the next test cases fail. > You're basically checking if the devices are on an MD device, which > isn't really a check for indpendent devices. e.g. my 4 devices could > be loopback devices with files all the in the same filesystem, or on > a VM using images at that are all hosted on the same device, or LVM > volumes on top of a single MD device, hardware lun, etc. They are > most certainly not independent, but your test won't pick up any of > them. The check _require_deletable_scratch_dev_pool will make sure the device is not a virtual device. My check just make sure the devices are not partitions. Maybe I should change the name of the my check. P.S. I made a mistake, I needn't take the soft raid into account because the soft raid devices are also virtual disks. > Hence the test does not require the devices to be independent to run > correctly. Sure, the test will run faster if each device is on an > independent spindle, but it's not a requirement for test success or > failure.... > >> diff --git a/common.rc b/common.rc >> index 602513a..ede25fe 100644 >> --- a/common.rc >> +++ b/common.rc >> @@ -1699,12 +1699,14 @@ _require_scratch_dev_pool() >> _notrun "this test requires a valid \$SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" >> fi >> >> - # btrfs test case needs 2 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure >> + # btrfs test case needs 4 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure >> # so fail it >> + # common.config has moved the first device to SCRATCH_DEV, so >> + # SCRATCH_DEV_POOL should have 3 or more disks. >> case $FSTYP in >> btrfs) >> - if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 2 ]; then >> - _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 2 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" >> + if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 3 ]; then >> + _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 4 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" >> fi >> ;; >> *) > > Rather than changing this every time a new number of disks is > required, change it so that the number of devices required by the > test is passed as a parameter to _require_scratch_dev_pool. Yes, I'll update my patch. Thanks Miao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:50:27 +0800, Miao Xie wrote: > On fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:18:04 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:16:11AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >>> Case 265 need 4 devices to test RAID10, so we need 4 or more devices not 2. >>> and it is better that these 4 devices are independent devices, especially >>> the 2nd last one, so we add independent device check to check the devices >>> in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL. >> >> I don't see any reason for requiring the devices to be independent. > > README said we need independent devices. I think the reason is: > Case 265 will remove/add the 2nd last device in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL, if this device > is a partition of a device, not a independent device, it is easy to make a mistake > for the users that the other partitions are used while doing the test. If so, > the name of the device will be changed, and it will make the next test cases fail. I find all the partitions and the virtual devices don't have the delete entry-point in sysfs, so we can avoid the above problem by checking the delete entry-point. >> You're basically checking if the devices are on an MD device, which >> isn't really a check for indpendent devices. e.g. my 4 devices could >> be loopback devices with files all the in the same filesystem, or on >> a VM using images at that are all hosted on the same device, or LVM >> volumes on top of a single MD device, hardware lun, etc. They are >> most certainly not independent, but your test won't pick up any of >> them. > > The check _require_deletable_scratch_dev_pool will make sure the device is not > a virtual device. My check just make sure the devices are not partitions. > Maybe I should change the name of the my check. > > P.S. I made a mistake, I needn't take the soft raid into account because > the soft raid devices are also virtual disks. > >> Hence the test does not require the devices to be independent to run >> correctly. Sure, the test will run faster if each device is on an >> independent spindle, but it's not a requirement for test success or >> failure.... If the 2nd last device in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL is a partition, case 265 will fail because case 265 is designed for independent device test and doesn't take the partitions into account. Thanks Miao >> >>> diff --git a/common.rc b/common.rc >>> index 602513a..ede25fe 100644 >>> --- a/common.rc >>> +++ b/common.rc >>> @@ -1699,12 +1699,14 @@ _require_scratch_dev_pool() >>> _notrun "this test requires a valid \$SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" >>> fi >>> >>> - # btrfs test case needs 2 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure >>> + # btrfs test case needs 4 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure >>> # so fail it >>> + # common.config has moved the first device to SCRATCH_DEV, so >>> + # SCRATCH_DEV_POOL should have 3 or more disks. >>> case $FSTYP in >>> btrfs) >>> - if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 2 ]; then >>> - _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 2 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" >>> + if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 3 ]; then >>> + _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 4 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" >>> fi >>> ;; >>> *) >> >> Rather than changing this every time a new number of disks is >> required, change it so that the number of devices required by the >> test is passed as a parameter to _require_scratch_dev_pool. > > Yes, I'll update my patch. > > Thanks > Miao > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/265 b/265 index ec8410c..947e65b 100755 --- a/265 +++ b/265 @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch _require_scratch_dev_pool +_require_independent_scratch_dev_pool _require_deletable_scratch_dev_pool # Test cases related to raid in btrfs diff --git a/README b/README index d81ede9..bb10dba 100644 --- a/README +++ b/README @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Preparing system for tests (IRIX and Linux): not be run. (SCRATCH and TEST must be two DIFFERENT partitions) OR - - for btrfs only: some btrfs test cases will need 3 or more independent + - for btrfs only: some btrfs test cases will need 4 or more independent SCRATCH disks which should be set using SCRATCH_DEV_POOL (for eg: SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc") with which SCRATCH_DEV should be unused by the tester, and for the legacy @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Preparing system for tests (IRIX and Linux): - setenv TEST_DIR "mount point of TEST PARTITION" - optionally: - setenv SCRATCH_DEV "device containing SCRATCH PARTITION" OR - (btrfs only) setenv SCRATCH_DEV_POOL "to 3 or more SCRATCH disks for + (btrfs only) setenv SCRATCH_DEV_POOL "to 4 or more SCRATCH disks for testing btrfs raid concepts" - setenv SCRATCH_MNT "mount point for SCRATCH PARTITION" - setenv TAPE_DEV "tape device for testing xfsdump" diff --git a/common.rc b/common.rc index 602513a..ede25fe 100644 --- a/common.rc +++ b/common.rc @@ -1699,12 +1699,14 @@ _require_scratch_dev_pool() _notrun "this test requires a valid \$SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" fi - # btrfs test case needs 2 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure + # btrfs test case needs 4 or more scratch_dev_pool; other FS not sure # so fail it + # common.config has moved the first device to SCRATCH_DEV, so + # SCRATCH_DEV_POOL should have 3 or more disks. case $FSTYP in btrfs) - if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 2 ]; then - _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 2 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" + if [ "`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL|wc -w`" -lt 3 ]; then + _notrun "btrfs and this test needs 4 or more disks in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL" fi ;; *) @@ -1746,6 +1748,20 @@ _require_deletable_scratch_dev_pool() done } +# We will check if the device is independent device. +_require_independent_scratch_dev_pool() +{ + local i + local dev + for i in $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL; do + dev=${i/*\//} + [[ ! $dev == md* && $dev == *[0-9] ]] && \ + _notrun "$i is not a independent device" + [[ $dev == md* && $dev == md[0-9]*p[0-9]* ]] && \ + _notrun "$i is not a independent device" + done +} + # We check for btrfs and (optionally) features of the btrfs command _require_btrfs() {
Case 265 need 4 devices to test RAID10, so we need 4 or more devices not 2. and it is better that these 4 devices are independent devices, especially the 2nd last one, so we add independent device check to check the devices in SCRATCH_DEV_POOL. Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com> --- 265 | 1 + README | 4 ++-- common.rc | 22 +++++++++++++++++++--- 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)