Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under Linux | From | zhilong <> | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:54:34 +0800 |
| |
On 02/13/2017 01:08 PM, zhilong wrote: > Hi, Jes; > > > On 01/13/2017 12:41 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> On 01/11/17 23:24, Guoqing Jiang wrote: >>> >>> On 01/12/2017 12:59 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>> On 01/11/17 11:52, Shaohua Li wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:49:04AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>>>> Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>>>>> I am pleased to announce the availability of >>>>>>> mdadm version 4.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is available at the usual places: >>>>>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/ >>>>>>> and via git at >>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git >>>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/mdadm/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The update in major version number primarily indicates this is a >>>>>>> release by it's new maintainer. In addition it contains a large >>>>>>> number >>>>>>> of fixes in particular for IMSM RAID and clustered RAID >>>>>>> support. In >>>>>>> addition this release includes support for IMSM 4k sector drives, >>>>>>> failfast and better documentation for journaled RAID. >>>>>> Thank you for the new release. Unfortunately I get 9 failures >>>>>> running the >>>>>> test suite: >>>>>> >>>>>> tests/00raid1... FAILED >>>>>> tests/07autoassemble... FAILED >>>>>> tests/07changelevels... FAILED >>>>>> tests/07revert-grow... FAILED >>>>>> tests/07revert-inplace... FAILED >>>>>> tests/07testreshape5... FAILED >>>>>> tests/10ddf-fail-twice... FAILED >>>>>> tests/20raid5journal... FAILED >>>>>> tests/10ddf-incremental-wrong-order... FAILED >>>>> Yep, several tests usually fail. It appears some checks aren't always >>>>> good. At >>>>> least the 'check' function for reshape/resync isn't reliable in my >>>>> test, I saw >>>>> 07changelevelintr fails frequently. >>>> That is my experience as well - some of them are affected by the >>>> kernel >>>> version too. We probably need to look into making them more reliable. >>> If possible, it could be a potential topic for lsf/mm raid >>> discussion as >>> Coly suggested >>> in previous mail. >>> >>> Is current test can run the test for different raid level, say, "./test >>> --raidtype=raid1" could >>> execute all the *r1* tests, does it make sense to do it if we don't >>> support it now. >> We could have a discussion about this at LSF/MM, if someone is willing >> to sponsor getting it accepted and we can get the right people there. >> >> Note that the test suite also allows you to run all the 01 tests by >> specifying ./test 01. I do like to see the test suite improved and made >> more resilient. > I'm sorry for my late response, I'm just back to work today from > vacation. In the past months, I learned and worked for cluster-md > feature, > and I have draft one test suit for cluster-md feature. please refer to > https://github.com/zhilongliu/clustermd-autotest > I'm very willing to do something for improving mdadm testing part, > also wanna improve cluster-md test suit, welcome all comments for it. > I would keep making cluster-md test scripts more and more stable, and finally apply to integrate into mdadm test part. :-)
Best regards, -Zhilong >> Cheers, >> Jes >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > Thanks very much, > -Zhilong > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
| |