[Gluster-devel] Regression tests: Should we test non-XFS too?

Ric Wheeler rwheeler at redhat.com
Mon Apr 14 19:50:05 UTC 2014

On 04/07/2014 08:55 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 04/05/2014 01:23 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
>> On 04/05/2014 10:27 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2014, at 5:17 PM, James wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Justin Clift <justin at gluster.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> So, are people interested in us running the tests on other
>>>>> brick filesystem types, such as ext4? (or whatever else)
>>>> Yes, absolutely, but I think it's btrfs that will matter, not ext4.
>>> Cool.  Running the tests on CentOS 6.5 VM's at the moment, so will need
>>> to investigate btrfs for that. :)
>> We need to increase the number of variables for our regression runs.
>> Hence running on both ext4 and btrfs would be nice to have.
> Seconded. I almost hesitate to say it, but we should probably test on zfs too.

The ZFS kernel modules cannot be legally shipped with either RHEL or CentOS - 
end users (according to some lawyers) can download and run it themselves.

Testing ZFS it iffy for those of us at Red Hat at least :)

>>> If btrfs on CentOS 6.5 isn't a go-er (no idea), we'll need to get the
>>> tests running cleanly on something where it is.  Maybe Fedora 20?
>>> (again, no idea, would have to check) :)
>> btrfs on Fedora 20 is probably a better bet than CentOS 6.5.
> btrfs is in the kernel. There's a 
> /lib/modules/2.6.32-431.11.2.el6.centos.plus.x86_64/kernel/fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko 
> on my CentOS 6.5 box. You can get btrfs-progs from epel.
> A cursory look at the diff between the RHEL6.5 .../fs/btrfs source and the 
> Fedora .../fs/btrfs source doesn't look too different; if we're worried about 
> the relative stability of btrfs. It's my understanding that it was only the 
> lack of an fsck utility that was hindering its adoption in RHEL.
> I'd say we ought to test on both RHEL/CentOS and Fedora. With our limited 
> resources we just need to prioritize accordingly.
> And if there's some concern about the diff between btrfs-progs-0.20.0 in 
> RHEL/CentOS versus btrfs-progs-3.12-1 in Fedora, I suspect we can build 
> btrfs-progs-3.12-1 for RHEL and CentOS.

I would use a recent Fedora or (eventually) RHEL7 versions of the kernel to test 
btrfs. The btrfs code in Fedora (and RHEL7) tracks upstream well, RHEL6/CentOS6 
is pretty old and rife with bugs (data loss/performance/you name it).

Btrfs is tech preview in RHEL6.x so you should not need to get anything from 
EPEL - the utilities should be there.

Testing ext4 on RHEL6.x/CentOS should be fine though,


More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list