Christoph Hellwig wrote:

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:

quoted

Good plan, couple comments:

should quick only be a subset auto tests or are they orthogonal?

Just a subset of auto, yes.

quoted

A few tests you've flagged as quick don't met the 20s criteria on my
box, just FWIW; may be filesystem-size specific:

013 57

We need this one for sure.

agreed

quoted

028 23
031 21
049 36
075 36
076 56
078 20
091 26
112 38
113 55
178 363

Most are probably close enough, but 178 looks nasty - seems to be
xfs_repair that's taking so long.  These are running on 100G partitions,
though :)

178 only takes 16 seconds for me, running on 10G partitions.

interesting that a 10x size growth makes a 22x time growth.

I'm fine removing tests, and 178 would be the first candidate, maybe 076
and 113, too.

Fine by me to leave them in, too, not a big deal - though maybe not 178.
 Just wanted to point out that some of this is probably
fs-size-dependent.  It'd be neat to have this somehow run based on
what's in the timestamp file, though that requires an initial seed.

I'd just drop 178 and call it good for now.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs