Lustre devel - Jan 2007 - [Bug 10816] reservation based allocator

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10816



(In reply to comment #19)

Some comments from the Cray testing group about the test plan.

Given that the purpose of the allocator is to reduce fragmentation (and 
give better and more consistent performance?) on aging filesystems the 
test plan seems to be lacking in any fragmentation and performance 
measurements, particularly in regard to a filesystem with significant 
longer term use.

There should be some mention of the impact of this change on the performance
of metadata operations and how it will be measured.

The plan doesn''t mention running CFS''s regular regression
tests.  It would
also be nice to have the list of other workloads and tests CFS plans to run.

There should be more description of hardware being used.

It should include running on a raid.

It should include running on at least 2 TB LUNs.

There is nothing about the interaction with lustre striping: stripe sizes, 
stripe counts, etc.

There should be testing of a large file system - multiple osts, using multiple 
multi-processor jobs, doing I/O to multiple, differently striped directories.

There doesn''t seem to be any checking of data integrity as part of the
tests.

Add segmented and random I/O to the testing.

Are there tunable allocation parameters or policy choices?  If so, they should 
be tested.

Estimates of effort and schedule?

Who is responsible for the testing?

How and to whom will results be presented?

What is not being tested and what are the associated risks?  This is important 
to us to know as it gives us some idea of what areas may be weak and we can 
decide how to mitigate the risks.

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10816

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #9253 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |


Created an attachment (id=9436)
Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
 --> (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=9436&action=view)
Updated tests for mballoc

Made the following changes to the tests.

1) Added DIRECT_IO flag in some tests.
2) Wrote test 0 - "consistency checking of buddy bitmap", using
Alex''s ioctl to

retrieve buddy and block bitmap.
3) And some other minor fixes.