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

[zhilong]

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.

> Cheers,
> Jes
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Thanks very much,
-Zhilong