On 09/18/2009 02:38 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ric Wheeler<rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/18/2009 02:19 PM, Chris Green wrote:
It seems like what you'd need to robustly test barriers is some sort of
barrier-supporting loopback device, which
acted correctly with barriers, but had worst-case behavior without them
(buffering things for random arbitrarily long periods of time,
performing all operations in random order, etc).
I think that it is pretty easy to get corruption (defined as fsck issues) if
we have non-working barriers and do power fail testing. It is a bit tricky
to automate that though but we are working on it,
ric
Ric,
You are probably already using them to help automate the process, but
if you don't know computer controlled power switches are pretty
standard fare for computer clusters. I'm sure Redhat's cluster team
has some.
And the cluster team may also have scripts to test things like
unexpected power fails to one of the cluster members. It may not be
too hard to adjust those scripts to handle your needs.
Greg
We definitely have those and do similar testing. It is a matter of
getting a good work load and automating the regression testing.
Chris's earlier test is a great starting point, HP has tests (hazard)
that do really mean things to storage as well.
Just need to get time to get it all going :-)
ric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
