xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add "quick" group

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add "quick" group
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:42:59 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090215182153.GA31179@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20090214164245.GD19813@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49972260.4000702@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090215182153.GA31179@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Good plan, couple comments:
>>
>> should quick only be a subset auto tests or are they orthogonal?
> 
> Just a subset of auto, yes.
> 
>> A few tests you've flagged as quick don't met the 20s criteria on my
>> box, just FWIW; may be filesystem-size specific:
>>
>> 013 57
> 
> We need this one for sure.

agreed

>> 028 23
>> 031 21
>> 049 36
>> 075 36
>> 076 56
>> 078 20
>> 091 26
>> 112 38
>> 113 55
>> 178 363
>>
>> Most are probably close enough, but 178 looks nasty - seems to be
>> xfs_repair that's taking so long.  These are running on 100G partitions,
>> though :)
> 
> 178 only takes 16 seconds for me, running on 10G partitions.

interesting that a 10x size growth makes a 22x time growth.

> I'm fine removing tests, and 178 would be the first candidate, maybe 076
> and 113, too.

Fine by me to leave them in, too, not a big deal - though maybe not 178.
 Just wanted to point out that some of this is probably
fs-size-dependent.  It'd be neat to have this somehow run based on
what's in the timestamp file, though that requires an initial seed.

I'd just drop 178 and call it good for now.

-Eric

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