On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 14:37 +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > FITRIM ioctl is used on a mounted filesystem to discard (or "trim") > > blocks which are not in use by the filesystem. This is useful for > > solid-state drives (SSDs) and thinly-provi-sioned storage. This test > > helps to verify filesystem FITRIM implementation to assure that it > > does not corrupts data. > > > > This test creates checksums of all files in xfstests directory and > > run several processes which clear its working directory on SCRATCH_MNT, > > then copy everything from xfstests into its working directory, create > > list of files in working directory and its checksums and compare it with the > > original list of checksums. Every process works in the loop so it repeat > > remove->copy->check, while fstrim tool is running simultaneously. > > > > Fstrim is just a helper tool which uses FITRIM ioctl to actually do the > > filesystem discard. > > > > I found this very useful because when the FITRIM is really buggy (thus > > data-destroying) the 249 test will notice, because checksums will most > > likely change. > > Hello, > > I know that there has been some problems with this in the past, but I > would be REALLY pleased if it should just go in already. The test number > probably needs to be updated, though. Lukas, I will commit this for you. Either later today or tomorrow. It was ready to go last week but I was preoccupied with getting my metadump patch series wrapped up. I'm done with that now (waiting for a review). I will update the test number to suit the latest code before I commit it. Thank you for your work on it, and for your patience. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for this. -Alex > The thing is, that more and more batched discard implementations are > popping up and I do not even know if, or how, they are testing it. And > I just can not keep pointing them to the patch in the mailing list. > > I know that that is probably mainly my fault, because of the > imperfections of the test, but *I hope* it should be all sorted out now > (except of test number obviously!). Could you please consider merging it > in ? > > Thanks! > -Lukas _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
