[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add execution of a custom command to fsstress (-x

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add execution of a custom command to fsstress (-x and -X options)
From: Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:51:05 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130321195054.GO17758@dastard>
References: <1363863585-25598-1-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130321195054.GO17758@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2

On 21.03.2013 20:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:59:45AM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
>> From: Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> This patch adds execution of a custom command in the middle of all fsstress
>> operations. Its intended use is the creation of snapshots in the middle of a
>> test run.
> Why do you need fsstress to do this? Why can't you just run fsstress
> in the background and run a loop creating periodic snapshots in the
> control script?

Because I want reproducible results. Same random seed should result in
the very same snapshots being created.

> Also, did you intend that every process creates a snapshot? i.e. it
> looks lik eif you run a 1000 processes, they'll all run a snapshot
> operation at X operations? i.e. this will generate nproc * X
> snapshots in a single run. This doesn't seem very wise to me....

Agreed, I haven't thought of running more than one process. For the sake
of reproducibility, I wouldn't want multiple processes for my test case

I'm not sure if there are other applications than snapshot creation for
such a feature, so I cannot argue whether to have each process execute
such a command or not.


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