On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 09:33:19AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Agreed. I would very much have liked to continue single-instance > testing in peace the same way I always have. There are things that > excite me that I would like to move onto; refactoring a large pile of > bash is NOT one of them. I'm also not particularly interested in check-parallel; the reason for this is that using a 64-CPU system is *expensive*. It's actually cheaper to kick off multiple VM's and then shard the tests across multiple VM's. It's cheaper to use a multiple small, cheaper VM's compared to a single large VM. Sure, having a fast wall clock time is kinda cool. But not everyone has access to -- or can afford -- a 64-CPU behemonth. (Either the cost of the server, or the cost of electricity / air conditioning --- I recently upgrading to an AMD Threadripper, although not a 64-CPU server, since I'm not that wealthy, and was shocked to find that it consumes 100W at *idle*.) > Before anyone gets any ideas -- there is no grand plan or collaboration > here. Chinner posted an RFC[1] and wrote: > > "This will probably take a bit of time, so I'd like to get the bug > fixes, improvements and infrastructure changes underway so I'm not > left carrying a huge patchset for months...." Yeah, I'll say that I'm a bit annoyed myself, since I've been carrying patches out of trees for *years* because Dave has objected that the patches didn't reach his high standards, and then the cr*p that was check-parallel got merged? Because he's an XFS architect? I can't help but think that there is a massive double standard.... > > It's not just me who observes that. It seems that BTRFS is not tested > > before release as thoroughly as other filesystems (probably just XFS). > > Admittedly, I only run ext4/btrfs in the default configurations. I only > learned yesterday about SCRATCH_DEV_POOL because Felipe called that out. I'm actually running ext4, xfs, btrfs, and f2fs on fs-next every day. I used to update to xfstests's for-next quite regularly. But given how destablized for-next got, I reduced the regularity of updating to the latest for-next, because I got busy and I didn't always have time to debug for-next breakages.... - Ted
