Hi, I tested F20 on a physical host with a vertex3 ssd. But it was not a requested test case, i re-used a md raid0 with a 6gb partition of the ssd.
The file-system was setup as a storage pool for virt-manager. I did not experience any issues, i installed 2 F20 guest at the same time. I even rebooted many times and it survived several kernel updates. I did not test a power-loss scenario. I has been working ok since a couple of days. The only thing that i can recall as strange is the fact that bcache seems to not to use discard/trim for some reason. I also did the non lvm tests on guest, without any issue. Cheers. On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Rolf Fokkens <r...@rolffokkens.nl> wrote: > Hi all, > > We've been waiting to see if other people who couldn't make on Sunday > would also do some testing. That hasn't happened, so a few words on my > impressions on the test day are appropriate indeed. > > First of all not many people really did some testing. We didn't expect > many people to participate, but the 3 people who did (many thanks to > them!) were the bare minimum we anticipated. This was probably caused by > the following: > - SSD caching may need more explanation, not many people understand what > it is and what the benefits are > - Because it's hard to change an existing partition to a 'bcached' > partition, it's not really tempting to test (there's a blocks utility > under development that may help, currently backup-restore is the only way). > - Not many people have the required resources available to do testing. > Even when testing in a VM not many people have the required 10GB available > (The requirements could be lowered top about 6GB, so that might help) > - Installing F20 as requested in the prerequisites was harder to the > testers than we anticipated. Specifically planning a specific partition > layout in Anaconda requires a lot of attention (I could upload a VM image > somewhere to facilitate that). > > About the testing itself: > - the alignment of the tools (bcache-tools, kernel, util-linux and dracut) > is really good now, people were able to do the testcases (1.A and 1.B) > without a hitch. > - nobody tested the LVM integration (testcases 2.A and 2.B), so no test > results on that part. > - Unfortunately kernel 3.11.4 (which was the latest version on Sunday) > exhibited a bug during stress testing > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018615), but that bug is > supposed to be fixed in kernel 3.11.5 which was released later this week. > > So I think SSD Caching (using bcache) is in a good shape, but I would like > to encourage people to do some more testing. Of course other feedback is > also appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Rolf > > Op 10/18/13 11:22 AM schreef Piergiorgio Sartor > <piergiorgio.sar...@nexgo.de>: > >>On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:56:25AM +0200, Rolf Fokkens wrote: >>[...] >>> The SSD Cache Fedora test day >>> ============================= >>> On 13th of October there's an "SSD Cache Fedora test day": see the >>> Wiki page >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2013-10-13_SSD_Cache. This >>> page is work in progress, any feedback is welcome. People interested >>> in testing are invited to participate on 13th of October. >>> >>> When there's anything new toreport, I'll keep you posted. >> >>Hi Rolf, >> >>could you spend few words about the results >>of the SSD Cache Fedora test day? >> >>Anything interesting or surprising happened? >>Any disappointment? >> >>Thanks, >> >>bye, >> >>-- >> >>piergiorgio > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
