On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 16:19 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 10:11 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Bob Gustafson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 09:12 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> Bob Gustafson wrote: > > >>> On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 08:55 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> FWIW there is supposed to be an ext3->ext4 migration via anaconda if you > > >>>> boot with "ext4migrate" on the cmdline. > > >>> Hmm, by definition an 'update' - and failure is not an option - can't go > > >>> back to FC10. > > >>> > > >>> Testing of this option on Anaconda would include having a FC10 whole > > >>> disk image - to re-image disks for the next test. > > >>> > > >> Yep. I guess I missed the FC10 part. > > >> > > > > > > Also, for testing RAID and ext4migrate, I think the testers will need a > > > disk image for both RAID disks (assuming RAID 1). The data on both disks > > > should be the same, but I think there are differences in the metadata > > > between each disk in a pair. Is this true? > > > > The fs metadata on each leg of the mirror should be identical. > > But depending on the RAID used the RAID metadata may not be. If you're > preserving images of members for re-tests this will matter (though I'd > have thought it would be easier to keep an image of the fs and restore > that to the array each time you need to re-test). > Sounds like a good idea. Using small disks would save time too.. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
