[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110204000431.GB2623@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:04:31 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
lsf-pc@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Drop ext2/ext3 codebase? When?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:32:01AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> > If we can have a real plan for moving in this direction though, I'd
> > support it. I'm just not sure how we get enough real testing under
> > our belts to be comfortable with dropping ext[23], especially as
> > most distros now default to ext4 anyway.
>
> Eric what sort of testing are you looking for?
The biggest problem in my opinion is that we have a large set of
options, and we don't necessarily test all of them. The options that
I normaly test is
* 4k blocksize, with journal, extents
* 1k blocksize, with journal, extents (this helps flush out problems
that show up architectures with 16k page size and
4k block sizes, i.e., Power PC and Itanium)
* 4k blocksize, no journal
Things that I should also test, but which take a lot longer:
* nodelalloc (and combinatorics, 4k/1k blocksize, journal)
* filesystem with extents disabled (with more combinatorics!)
I'll sometimes do these additional tests, but they're not part of my
regular test sets.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists