filesystem test suite?

filesystem test suite?

[Herbert Pötzl]

Hi All!

is there any filesystem test suite, which does
automated tests, verifying the different fops
open/create/unlink/link/symlink/mkdir/rmdir ...

are there any test suites which check for fs
consistency (like number of links, parent/child
issues, etc)?

something like 'unix fs expected behaviour'? 

TIA,
Herbert

Re: filesystem test suite?

[Peter L. Ashford]

Herbert,

> is there any filesystem test suite, which does
> automated tests, verifying the different fops
> open/create/unlink/link/symlink/mkdir/rmdir ...

Try the LMBench tool at

http://www.bitmover.com/lmbench/

It does much of this, and quite a bit more besides.

Good luck.
				Peter Ashford

Re: filesystem test suite?

[Herbert Pötzl]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:06:26PM -0700, Peter L. Ashford wrote:
> Herbert,
> 
> > is there any filesystem test suite, which does
> > automated tests, verifying the different fops
> > open/create/unlink/link/symlink/mkdir/rmdir ...
> 
> Try the LMBench tool at
> 
> http://www.bitmover.com/lmbench/
> 
> It does much of this, and quite a bit more besides.

well, thanks a lot, but this isn't
what I'm looking for ... my fault I guess ...

I want to verify the semantic of a filesystem
optimally against a kind of 'unix fs' reference

to put it simple, something that checks that
when I create a file and two hard links to it
then those three references indeed share the
same data, or that if the original is removed
two links are left ... such basic stuff ...

best,
Herbert

> Good luck.
> 				Peter Ashford
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: filesystem test suite?

[Herbert Pötzl]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 07:42:15AM -0700, Zachary Peterson wrote:
> 
> Herbert,
> 
> I'm looking for something like this too, but looks like it may not exist.
> I'm thinking about writing one myself, I'd love to bounce ideas off of you
> regarding what you think should be in it.
> 
> Any input?

well, it seems to me, that the hard links are
one big can of worms regarding fs consistency,
so I would do a lot of testing there ...

also filename/pathname specialities and length
come to my mind, and finally symlink and follow
symlink issues ...

of course basic f_ops should be verified for
existence and correctness, and access permissions
should be checked (escpecially dir/symlink issues)

further test issues:

 - inodes (number/size)
 - quota accounting
 - mount/umount/busy

what do you consider important?

best,
Herbert