On 3/3/13 3:02 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:19:17 +1100
> schrieb Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 01:05:50AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> We cannot run fsck.ocfs2 because the file system
>>> is most likely mounted on another node.
>> This patch means that ocfs2 filesystems are *never* checked for
>> consistency, even when you are testing them with exclusive local
>> access. That defeats a primary function of xfstests - ensuring that
>> the tests run do no corrupt the filesystem.
>> Besides, why would you be running xfstests on a filesystem that is
>> mounted on multiple nodes? Yes, ocfs2 is a cluster filesystem, but
>> xfstests is designed to test local filesystem behaviour and is
>> completely cluster naive. Hence having multiple nodes mount the
>> filesystem that is being tested by xfstests does not serve any
>> purpose at all. Further, turning off consistency checking for those
>> that are running ocfs2 testing on single nodes means that testing is
>> now mostly wasted as the majority of problems that can occur are no
>> longer detectable....
> Using xfstests I was able to trigger dlm issues in ocfs2.
> I ran xfstests on one node and other nodes had it mounted too.
Just for my own education, how does that happen?
Were you testing on filesystems already configured into a cluster,
or did the cluster somehow pick up your newly-defined test
fileystems and mount them?
How does fsck.ocfs2 behave when you run it on one node, when the
fs is mounted on others? Will it proceed w/ no knowledge of the
fact that it's mounted elsewhere?
> To ensure that fsck.ocfs2 will not corrupt the filesystem I've applied
> this patch.
> If you don't like the patch I'm perfectly fine with that.
> Maybe it makes more sense to add a feature to xfstests which unmounts
> the ocfs2 filesystem on all nodes (using SSH), then it is allowed to
> run fsck.ocfs2.
> xfs mailing list