Re: Testing with Bluestore and Filestore

[Mark Nelson <mnelson@redhat.com>]

On 03/02/2017 12:40 PM, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Brett Niver <bniver@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Sage,
>>>
>>> Perhaps this has already been discussed, but Jason had a good idea,
>>> that perhaps instead of testing both BS and FS upstream independently,
>>>  and doubling our testing, we might have teuthology randomly pick
>>> which to use.
>>>
>>> That would potentially reduce TCs and also give us the testing that
>>> would help prepare for working thru the migration/transition once BS
>>> is ready.
>>
>> This is really what the subset functionality is for, although I think
>> John had started working on a feature in this area that would let the
>> subset functionality go across the rados configuration options while
>> guaranteeing full combinatorial explosion on the FS tests.
>> -Greg
>
> I was actually thinking that OSDs should be randomly assigned an
> object store by teuthology (i.e. roughly 50% FileStore vs 50%
> BlueStore in the same cluster in the same test run). Right now, the
> tests (at least for RBD) running 100% FileStore or 100% BlueStore with
> no intermixing (and no verification that PGs comprised of FileStore
> and BlueStore OSDs behave properly). That would also have the added
> benefit of eliminating half the test cases in the RBD suite even
> before you apply a subset.

Seems reasonable to me.  If the clusters are small we'll get pure 
bluestore and pure filestore every once and a while too which would be good.

Mark

>
>>>
>>> Brett
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>