Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under Linux

[Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>]

On 02/13/2017 12:54 AM, zhilong wrote:
> 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. :-)

I'd very much like to see work to improve the test suite, so that is great.

Once you have the test suites ready, please post patches and I shall be 
happy to implement them.

Please make sure to test that they don't break if people haven't built 
cluster support into their kernels.

Cheers,
Jes