Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:08:41 +0800
From:   zhilong <zlliu@...e.com>
To:     Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>,
        Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@...il.com>,
        "Brown, Neil" <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        "linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under
 Linux

Hi, Jes;


On 01/13/2017 12:41 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 01/11/17 23:24, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>>
>> On 01/12/2017 12:59 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>> On 01/11/17 11:52, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:49:04AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>>> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>>>> I am pleased to announce the availability of
>>>>>>       mdadm version 4.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is available at the usual places:
>>>>>>       http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
>>>>>> and via git at
>>>>>>       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git
>>>>>>       http://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/mdadm/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The update in major version number primarily indicates this is a
>>>>>> release by it's new maintainer. In addition it contains a large number
>>>>>> of fixes in particular for IMSM RAID and clustered RAID support.  In
>>>>>> addition this release includes support for IMSM 4k sector drives,
>>>>>> failfast and better documentation for journaled RAID.
>>>>> Thank you for the new release.  Unfortunately I get 9 failures
>>>>> running the
>>>>> test suite:
>>>>>
>>>>> tests/00raid1...          FAILED
>>>>> tests/07autoassemble...   FAILED
>>>>> tests/07changelevels...   FAILED
>>>>> tests/07revert-grow...    FAILED
>>>>> tests/07revert-inplace... FAILED
>>>>> tests/07testreshape5...   FAILED
>>>>> tests/10ddf-fail-twice... FAILED
>>>>> tests/20raid5journal...   FAILED
>>>>> tests/10ddf-incremental-wrong-order...  FAILED
>>>> Yep, several tests usually fail. It appears some checks aren't always
>>>> good.  At
>>>> least the 'check' function for reshape/resync isn't reliable in my
>>>> test, I saw
>>>> 07changelevelintr fails frequently.
>>> That is my experience as well - some of them are affected by the kernel
>>> version too. We probably need to look into making them more reliable.
>> If possible, it could be a potential topic for lsf/mm raid discussion as
>> Coly suggested
>> in previous mail.
>>
>> Is current test can run the test for different raid level, say, "./test
>> --raidtype=raid1" could
>> execute all the *r1* tests, does it make sense to do it if we don't
>> support it now.
> We could have a discussion about this at LSF/MM, if someone is willing
> to sponsor getting it accepted and we can get the right people there.
>
> Note that the test suite also allows you to run all the 01 tests by
> specifying ./test 01. I do like to see the test suite improved and made
> more resilient.
I'm sorry for my late response, I'm just back to work today from 
vacation. In the past months, I learned and worked for cluster-md feature,
and I have draft one test suit for cluster-md feature. please refer to 
https://github.com/zhilongliu/clustermd-autotest
I'm very willing to do something for improving mdadm testing part, also 
wanna improve cluster-md test suit, welcome all comments for it.

> Cheers,
> Jes
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Thanks very much,
-Zhilong

Powered by blists - more mailing lists