On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:12:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:41:33PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:34:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 3/18/13 12:09 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:10:51AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > still run with default settings. > > And when the default settings change, or some other bug fix comes > along? > > So, let's step back a moment and ask ourselves what the test is > actaully trying to test. zero-out is not what it is trying to test, > nor is it trying to test specific file layouts. This is a basic > *defragmenter* sanity test. SO, we're testing 2 things: Sorry about this - I've mixed up my threads about ext4 having problems with zero-out being re-enabled. I thought this was a cross-post of the 218 issue.... However, the same reasoning can be applied to 285 - the file sizes, the size of the holes and the size of the data is all completely arbitrary. If we make the holes in the files larger, then the zero-out problem simply goes away. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
