I would even use the same pool, as this is perfectly allowed. Will look at this next week. On another topic, I've just created a pull request for the improvements done on librados and libradosstriper around async calls : https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10049. Could somebody review it ? Also, I've added tests for the new calls, tried them and noticed that some tests of the rados test suite concerning writesame are failing right now. Sebastien On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 10:16 -0700, Samuel Just wrote: > Makes sense. I guess they'd have to pull from distinct name pools? > -Sam > On Jun 29, 2016 8:45 AM, "Sebastien Ponce" <sebastien.ponce@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Oh I see, I did not know this one indeed. > > I used the flag approach for the rados command line and it was > > really > > easy, as the API is identical, you only have to use a Striper > > object > > instead of an IOContext. > > Now looking at the RadosModel class, I see that the user API (like > > read/write/aio_read,...) is almost not used. Almost everything goes > > through the aio_operate calls wich are not present in Striper. > > So I believe the simplest would be to add a couple of TestOpType, > > namely 5 of them : > > TEST_OP_READ/WRITE/DELETE/SETXATTR/RMXATTR_STRIPER > > and implement the corresponding classes inheriting from TestOp. > > This would also have the advantage to mix striped and regular > > objects > > in the test, which is absolutely valid and thus should be tested. > > > > Sebastien > > > > > > On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 08:30 -0700, Samuel Just wrote: > > > Ah, sorry. See src/test/osd/RadosModel.* and > > > src/test/osd/TestRados.cc. It's gotten to be a somewhat kludgy > > mess, > > > but it's a really valuable stress test for verifying that the osd > > and > > > librados are behaving properly, especially when combined with > > failure > > > injection and osd thrashing. I'd like to either create a (less > > > kludgy, I can only hope) seperate version for librados striper, > > or > > > add > > > a flag to the existing one which causes it to use the striper > > instead > > > (and only allows ops where it makes sense). libradosstriper > > should > > > have the same ordering properties for piplined writes as normal > > > librados (right?), so modifying the existing test would probably > > get > > > us the most coverage for the least effort. > > > -Sam > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Sebastien Ponce > > > <sebastien.ponce@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, I'm not sure what you are exactly looking for : I see now > > > > that I > > > > look more carefully that there is a file called ceph_test_rados > > > > that > > > > looks like a wrapper around the ceph_test_rados_* tests. > > > > The equivalent does not seem to exist for striper (although the > > > > same > > > > wrapper would probably work), but the ceph_test_rados_striper_* > > > > tests > > > > do exist. > > > > Should we/I create a wrapper for striper ? I'm not sure I have > > the > > > > whole understanding of the structure of the whole test > > system... > > > > > > > > Sebastien > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 09:07 -0700, Samuel Just wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't remember anything like ceph_test_rados which uses > > > > > libradosstriper. Did I miss it? > > > > > -Sam > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Sebastien Ponce > > > > > <sebastien.ponce@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would be great indeed. As it's already there, it can be > > done > > > > > > already > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastien > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 15:25 -0700, Samuel Just wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The something like ceph_test_rados could then be wired > > into > > > > > > > ceph-qa-suite to be tested with osd thrashing to ensure > > that > > > > > > > ordering > > > > > > > works and continues to work as expected. > > > > > > > -Sam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat. > > com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sebastien, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mind updating us on the current status of > > > > > > > > libradosstriper? Where > > > > > > > > does it stand feature-wise with what you need, how are > > you > > > > > > > > currently using > > > > > > > > it or how do you plan to use it, and what is still > > missing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, one thing we really want to see is test coverage > > for > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > that we can comfortably point users toward it. This > > > > > > > > ideally > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > look > > > > > > > > something like the ceph_test_rados_api_* tests that > > verify > > > > > > > > individual > > > > > > > > operations behave as expected, and/or something like > > > > > > > > ceph_test_rados that > > > > > > > > throws random operations at is and verifies it returns > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > that match its in-memory model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > sage > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line > > "unsubscribe > > > > > > > > ceph- > > > > > > > > devel" in > > > > > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordom > > o-in > > > > > > > > fo.h > > > > > > > > tml > > > > > -- > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > > ceph- > > > > > devel" > > > > > in > > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info > > .htm > > > > > l > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
