xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Question]: xfstests test generic/233 failure

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Question]: xfstests test generic/233 failure
From: Zeng Linggang <zenglg.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:37:43 +0800
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20141029103636.GJ16186@dastard>
References: <1414575977.17402.3.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141029103636.GJ16186@dastard>
On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 21:36 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:46:17PM +0800, Zeng Linggang wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Comparing user usage
> > -Comparing group usage
> > +4c4
> > +< #1001     --   31348   32000   32000            772  1000  1000
> > +---
> > +> #1001     --   31144   32000   32000            772  1000  1000
> > ...
> > generic/231 and generic/270 also have the similar quota accounting mismatch.
> 
> fsstress can result in different file and directory layouts, hence
> result in different amounts of metadata in the filesystem. Metadata
> is also accounted to quotas (e.g. to the user who owns the
> directory) and so even if data usage is identical the metadata can
> still vary.
> 
> I see these test give small variations quite frequently, but they
> are are usually only quite small (a handful of blocks) so I've never
> really worried about it too much.
> 

Yep, it make me more clearer.
And thank you very much.

Best regards,
Zeng

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.


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