From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938719AbdAKQ7u (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:59:50 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f195.google.com ([209.85.220.195]:34657 "EHLO mail-qk0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759168AbdAKQ7s (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:59:48 -0500 From: Jes Sorensen X-Google-Original-From: Jes Sorensen Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under Linux To: Shaohua Li , Bruce Dubbs References: <1cd97490-e650-d98b-466a-095292dc5b98@gmail.com> <58751E90.5090306@gmail.com> <20170111165241.yavdwc57v6yodx7g@kernel.org> Cc: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , "Brown, Neil" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:59:46 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170111165241.yavdwc57v6yodx7g@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. I am also not sure how reliable the DDF tests are on systems without DDF support. Cheers, Jes