Re: [Gluster-devel] Regression tests: Should we test non-XFS too?

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

On 04/05/2014 01:23 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> On 04/05/2014 10:27 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
> > On 05/04/2014, at 5:17 PM, James wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Justin Clift <address@hidden>
> > > wrote:
> > > > So, are people interested in us running the tests on other
> > > > brick filesystem types, such as ext4? (or whatever else)
> > >
> > > Yes, absolutely, but I think it's btrfs that will matter, not ext4.
> >
> >
> > Cool.  Running the tests on CentOS 6.5 VM's at the moment, so will need
> > to investigate btrfs for that. :)
>
> We need to increase the number of variables for our regression runs.
> Hence running on both ext4 and btrfs would be nice to have.

Seconded. I almost hesitate to say it, but we should probably test on 
zfs too.

> > If btrfs on CentOS 6.5 isn't a go-er (no idea), we'll need to get the
> > tests running cleanly on something where it is.  Maybe Fedora 20?
> > (again, no idea, would have to check) :)
>
> btrfs on Fedora 20 is probably a better bet than CentOS 6.5.

btrfs is in the kernel. There's a 
/lib/modules/2.6.32-431.11.2.el6.centos.plus.x86_64/kernel/fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko 
on my CentOS 6.5 box. You can get btrfs-progs from epel.

A cursory look at the diff between the RHEL6.5 .../fs/btrfs source and 
the Fedora .../fs/btrfs source doesn't look too different; if we're 
worried about the relative stability of btrfs. It's my understanding 
that it was only the lack of an fsck utility that was hindering its 
adoption in RHEL.

I'd say we ought to test on both RHEL/CentOS and Fedora. With our 
limited resources we just need to prioritize accordingly.

And if there's some concern about the diff between btrfs-progs-0.20.0 in 
RHEL/CentOS versus btrfs-progs-3.12-1 in Fedora, I suspect we can build 
btrfs-progs-3.12-1 for RHEL and CentOS.

--

Kaleb