Hi all,
> Hi Cyril,
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 1:28 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > > I'm starting to wonder if we should start tracking minimal FS size per
> > > > filesystem since btrfs and xfs will likely to continue to grow and with
> > > > that we will end up disabling the whole fs related testing on embedded
> > > > boards with a little disk space. If we tracked that per filesystem we
> > > > would be able to skip a subset of filesystems when there is not enough
> > > > space. The downside is obviously that we would have to add a bit more
> > > > complexity to the test library.
> > > Maybe I could for start rewrite v2 (I've sent it without Cc kernel devs now it's
> > > mainly LTP internal thing) as it just to have 300 MB for XFS and 256 MB for the
> > > rest. That would require to specify filesystem when acquiring device (NULL would
> > > be for the default filesystem), that's would be worth if embedded folks counter
> > > each MB. It'd be nice to hear from them.
> > The 256MB limit was set previously due to btrfs, I bet that we can
> > create smaller images for ext filesytems for example.
Thanks for input, Geert!
> Yeah, we used to have ext2 root file systems that fit on 1440 KiB floppies.
These nice times when everything simple hadn't been solved yet ... :).
> IIRC, ext3 does have a minimum size of 32 MiB or so.
Interesting, I was able to create smaller.
I did some testing minimal size (verified on chdir01 test):
XFS: 300 MB, btrfs: 109 MB, ntfs: 2 MB, ext3: 2 MB, ext[24]: 1 MB, vfat: 1 MB, exfat: 1 MB.
I guess using XFS: 300 MB, btrfs: 109 MB and 16 MB for the rest could be enough.
I think so, tracking minimal FS size per FS is a practical idea.
But one thing we have to be aware of is that there may be different
minimal sizes for each FS version.
(so we'd better choose the maximum of minimal sizes).
16MB for general FS should be fine, I will help to test that if someone works out the patch.
But that would require to run all tests to see how many tests actually use
bigger data.