Re: [RFC PATCH] fstests: Check if a fs can survive random (emulated) power loss

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This test case is originally designed to expose unexpected corruption
> for btrfs, where there are several reports about btrfs serious metadata
> corruption after power loss.
>
> The test case itself will trigger heavy fsstress for the fs, and use
> dm-flakey to emulate power loss by dropping all later writes.
>

Come on... dm-flakey is so 2016
You should take Josef's fsstress+log-writes test and bring it to fstests:
https://github.com/josefbacik/log-writes

By doing that you will gain two very important features from the test:

1. Problems will be discovered much faster, because the test can run fsck
    after every single block write has been replayed instead of just at random
    times like in your test

2. Absolute guaranty to reproducing the problem by replaying the write log.
    Even though your fsstress could use a pre-defined random seed to results
    will be far from reproduciable, because of process and IO scheduling
    differences between subsequent test runs.
    When you catch an inconsistency with log-writes test, you can send the
    write-log recording to the maintainer to analyze the problem, even if it is
    a hard problem to hit. I used that useful technique for ext4,btrfs,xfs when
    ran tests with generic/455 and found problems.

Cheers,
Amir.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux