RFC: guard against more "dangerous" userspace options
I'll keep it short and sweet:
Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or options therein?
I'm thinking of, so far:
e4defrag
mkfs.ext4 -O meta_bg (?)
mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=1
tune2fs -I <bigger>
without the --eatmydata option (feel free to edit for clarity) we could get something like:
"The ____ option is experimental and/or incomplete, and should be used only for testing at this point. Please re-issue your command with '--eatmydata' option to use this option."
Thoughts?
I'm nervous about ext4 coming into wider use and people finding some of the bits which aren't -quite- ready for prime time yet, and winding up with a disaster.
Thanks,
-Eric
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen
I'll keep it short and sweet:
Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or options therein?
I'm thinking of, so far:
......
Quoted 1 line
tune2fs -I <bigger>
I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get that reviwed and applied
-aneesh
Quoted 7 lines · Aneesh Kumar K.V
Quoted 6 lines · Eric Sandeen
I'll keep it short and sweet:
Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or options therein?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
I'm thinking of, so far:
......
Quoted 1 line
tune2fs -I <bigger>
I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get that reviwed and applied
-aneesh
Better, or _safe_? :)
No offense and I certainly appreciate that work. If you feel it's robust enough now to safely unleash on users, I'll drop it from my list. :)
-Eric
Quoted 15 lines · Eric Sandeen
Quoted 14 lines · Aneesh Kumar K.V
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen
I'll keep it short and sweet:
Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or options therein?
I'm thinking of, so far:
......
Quoted 1 line
tune2fs -I <bigger>
I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get that reviwed and applied
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
-aneesh
Better, or _safe_? :)
No offense and I certainly appreciate that work. If you feel it's robust enough now to safely unleash on users, I'll drop it from my list. :)
I am interested in the test results. Getting more users to test would always be nice. But it still would help to get a through review.
-aneesh
Quoted 1 line · Aneesh Kumar K.V
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:48:08AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
I'm thinking of, so far:
......
Quoted 1 line
tune2fs -I <bigger>
I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get that reviwed and applied
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
-aneesh
Better, or _safe_? :)
No offense and I certainly appreciate that work. If you feel it's robust enough now to safely unleash on users, I'll drop it from my list. :)
I am interested in the test results. Getting more users to test would always be nice.
yep it's a tricky spot, asking users to test potentially dangerous code in real life.
Quoted 1 line
But it still would help to get a through review.
Agree, sorry I haven't yet done that.
-Eric
Quoted 2 lines
-aneesh
Quoted 16 lines · Aneesh Kumar
Quoted 15 lines · Eric Sandeen
Quoted 13 lines · Aneesh Kumar K.V
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen
I'll keep it short and sweet:
Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or options therein?
I'm thinking of, so far:
......
Quoted 1 line
tune2fs -I <bigger>
I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get that reviwed and applied
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Better, or _safe_? :)
No offense and I certainly appreciate that work. If you feel it's robust enough now to safely unleash on users, I'll drop it from my list. :)
I am interested in the test results. Getting more users to test would always be nice. But it still would help to get a through review.
Adding an inode resize operation into the f_random_corruption test, or into a similar test that runs with random mkfs parameters, would help exercise the functionality in ways that a static test does not.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.