On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We're having a series of problems with the valgrind included in xenial[1] > that have led us to restrict all valgrind tests to centos nodes. At teh > same time, we're also seeing spurious ENOSPC errors from btrfs on both > centos on xenial kernels[2], making trusty the only distro where btrfs > works reliably. > > Teuthology doesn't handle this well when it tries to put together the > test matrix (we can't test filestore+btrfs+valgrind). > > The easiest thing is to > > 1/ Stop testing filestore+btrfs for luminous onward. We've recommended > against btrfs for a long time and are moving toward bluestore anyway. +1000 John > 2/ Leave btrfs in the mix for jewel, and manually tolerate and filter out > the occasional ENOSPC errors we see. (They make the test runs noisy but > are pretty easy to identify.) > > If we don't stop testing filestore on btrfs now, I'm not sure when we > would ever be able to stop, and that's pretty clearly not sustainable. > Does that seem reasonable? (Pretty please?) > > sage > > > [1] http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18126 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20360 > [2] http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20169 > -- > 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 -- 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
