[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stress test on ppc

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
From: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 27 Nov 2000 08:27:55 GMT
Distribution: local
Organization: innominate AG, Berlin, Germany
References: <news2mail-8uecj0$i5e$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011101103.ZM113097@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20001110094151.C333@ysabell> <10011110006.ZM127189@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8uo7od$4lt$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011141059.ZM128320@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8utlfv$8iu$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011221244.ZM158790@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8vlq0n$hiu$2@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011261336.ZM166460@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Reply-to: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.0-XFS-test10 (i686))
"Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hi Thomas,

> On Nov 24,  1:21pm, Thomas Graichen wrote:
>> Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
>> ...
>> df gave: blocks=3136128 used=11488 avail=3124640
>> blocksize from xfs_db is '524288'

> that's the problem right there (the blocksize).

> I don't understand how one could get a blocksize like
> that since the test runs mkfs.xfs on the scratch device
> and so should always have a blocksize of 4K (by default)
> - see _populate_scratch() in the test, followed by the
> blksize=... line a little further down.

ah - i have an idea here: i'm currently using the ide driver from the
ppc linux tree - where i had to add the


to ide_ioctl in ide.c - maybe i have missed something there - but
from the diffs there was nothing suspect between the two ide drivers
which let me think of something too different ...

>> > (btw, any luck with ppc mount detecting a minix filesystem?)
>> sorry- looks like this was my fault: minix fs was simply not compiled
>> into the kernel :-(

> no, that wouldn't affect this test - its all user space
> testing of mkfs (no actual mount happens), so no kernel
> support for other filesystems is required.

>> ... works now

> *shrug* - must have been an alignment-of-the-planets issue.

no - you are right - the test still fails ... hm - but mount works
now with minix ... i think this is what you were talking about:

ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress # mkfs -t minix /dev/hda9
21856 inodes
65535 blocks
Firstdatazone=696 (696)

ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress # mount /dev/hda9 /mnt
ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress # mount | grep /mnt
/dev/hda9 on /mnt type minix (rw)
ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress # umount /mnt
ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress # mkfs -t xfs /dev/hda9
meta-data=/dev/hda9              isize=256    agcount=8, agsize=49152 blks
data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=393216, imaxpct=25
         =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks, unwritten=0
naming   =version 2              bsize=4096  
log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=1200
realtime =none                   extsz=65536  blocks=0, rtextents=0
ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress #

btw. i'm not shure if it really is only usermode - i think at least
the suse mount seems to require fs support (maybe looking into
/proc/filesystems - suse has no /etc/filesystems for instance) for
the mount fs detection - otherwise you get a "wrong major ..."


technical director                                       innominate AG
clustering & security                             the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>