On 1/4/12 5:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:54:25PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Ok, this is a significant rework of 275, which made too many
>> assumptions about details of space usage and failed on several
>> filesystems (it passed on xfs, but only by accident).
>>
>> This new version tries to leave about 256k free, then tries
>> a single 1M IO, and fails only if 0 bytes are written.
>>
>> It also sends a lot more to $seq.full for debugging on failure
>> and fixes a few other stylistic things.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I just had another thought about this, Eric....
>
>> +# And at least some of it should succeed.
>> +_filesize=`du $SCRATCH_MNT/tmp1 | awk '{print $1}'`
>> +[ $_filesize -eq 0 ] && _fail "write file err: Partial write until enospc failed; wrote 0 bytes."
>
> The question that just came to mind was this assumes that allocation
> succeeded so therefore the partial write succeeded. But that's not
> necessary the case. The partial write might not succeed leaving the
> file size as zero, but the underlying FS might not remove all the
> blocks it allocated (nothing says that it has to). Hence to
> determine if a partial write succeeded, we also need to check that
> the file size itself is greater than zero....
Probably need to read up on what posix says it should do. I think
what you're saying is that it might leave blocks allocated past EOF?
That'd be surprising to me, but maybe I misunderstand?
Anyway, testing file size as well as space is simple enough.
-Eric
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
