xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: status of userspace release

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: status of userspace release
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:35:32 -0500
Cc: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121103001639.GD29378@dastard>
References: <20121025151501.GV1377@xxxxxxx> <20121102055102.GY29378@dastard> <20121102185923.GG9783@xxxxxxx> <20121102230334.GA29378@dastard> <20121103001639.GD29378@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
On 11/2/12 7:16 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 10:03:34AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:59:23PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:02PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> We're working toward a userspace release this month.  There are several 
>>>>> patches
>>>>> that need to go in first, including backing out the xfsdump format 
>>>>> version bump
>>>>> from Eric, fixes for the makefiles from Mike, and the Polish language 
>>>>> update
>>>>> for xfsdump from Jakub.  If anyone knows of something else we need, now 
>>>>> is the
>>>>> time to flame about it.  I will take a look around for other important 
>>>>> patches
>>>>> too.
> ....
>>> The TODO list for userspace release currently stands at:
>>>
>>> 1) fix the header checksum failures... which is resolved
>>> 2) fix a futex hang in 059
>>> 3) fix the golden output changes related to multistream support in xfsdump
>>>    and --largefs
>>
>> Well, understand them first, then fix ;)
>>
>>> 4) test on more platforms
> 
> Another:
> 
> $ sudo xfs_info /mnt/scratch/
> meta-data=/dev/vdc               isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=12800 blks
>          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=51200, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=1200, version=2
>          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> $ sudo xfs_db -r -c "sb 0" -c "version" /dev/vdc
> versionnum [0xb4a4+0x8a] = 
> V4,NLINK,ALIGN,DIRV2,LOGV2,EXTFLG,MOREBITS,ATTR2,LAZYSBCOUNT,PROJID32BIT
> $
> 
> xfs_info is not reporting the 32 bit project ID status.

Weird, I didn't realize that
[PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: report projid32 status in growfs output
hadn't been pulled in.

> Yes, I know this requires the XFS_IOC_FSGEOM support for it, but I'd
> like it this release to at least say "off or unknown" here.

Heh, ok, when you reviewed you said it was no big deal ;)  but I guess
we can add the "or unknown" if you like.

> I say this, because this is the first thing I noticed when having a
> look at a test 287 failure:

Hm that's pretty odd.

-Eric

> 7 10s ... - output mismatch (see 287.out.bad)
> --- 287.out     2012-10-05 11:38:08.000000000 +1000
> +++ 287.out.bad 2012-11-03 10:55:15.000000000 +1100
> @@ -2,22 +2,24 @@
>  No 32bit project quotas:
>  projid = 1234
>  projid = 0
> +xfs_quota: cannot set project on /mnt/scratch/pquota/32bit: Invalid argument
>  With 32bit project quota support:
>  projid = 1234
> -projid = 2123456789
> +projid = 0
> +xfs_quota: cannot set project on /mnt/scratch/restore/pquota/32bitv2: 
> Invalid argument
>  The restored file system + one additional file:
>  projid = 1234
> -projid = 2123456789
> -projid = 2123456789
> +projid = 0
> +projid = 0
>  These two values of 16bit project quota ids shall be the same
> -core.projid_lo = 1234
> +core.projid_lo = 0
>  core.projid_hi = 0
>  core.projid_lo = 1234
>  core.projid_hi = 0
>  These three values of 32bit project quota ids shall be the same
> -core.projid_lo = 24853
> -core.projid_hi = 32401
> -core.projid_lo = 24853
> -core.projid_hi = 32401
> -core.projid_lo = 24853
> -core.projid_hi = 32401
> +core.projid_lo = 0
> +core.projid_hi = 0
> +core.projid_lo = 0
> +core.projid_hi = 0
> +core.projid_lo = 0
> +core.projid_hi = 0
> 
> Here's what's curious - this is failing on the 17TB filesystem, but
> is not failing on 10-20GB filesystems. There seems to be a pattern
> here....
> 
> Note that I only recently updated xfstests on the VM with the 17TB
> filesystem (i.e. on wednesday), so this is probably the first time I
> have run test 287 on a large filesystem like this. Same goes for
> much of the other problems I'm reporting - xfstests on this machine
> has been running out of dev branch I hadn't updated for a while, so
> these problems might have been around for a while on large
> filesystems...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 

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