Greg Troxel wrote:
> > That's a good test, but how does zfs compare in for the same test with lets
> > say ffs or ext2fs (filesystems that offer persistence)?
>
> With the same system, booted in the same way, but with 3 different
> filesystems mounted on /tmp, I get similar numbers of failures:
I think that is good enough. We should document the timing-related tests and
try to fix them!
christos
> On Mar 25, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
> chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
>
>> That's a good test, but how does zfs compare in for the same
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> That's a good test, but how does zfs compare in for the same test with lets
> say ffs or ext2fs (filesystems that offer persistence)?
With the same system, booted in the same way, but with 3 different
filesystems mounted on /tmp, I get similar
In article ,
Greg Troxel wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>which is also similar, but slightly different.
>
>So overal I conclude that there's nothing terrible going on, and that
>these results are in the same class of mostly passing but somewhat
>irregular as the base case. So work to do, but it doesn't
I got a suggestion to run atf with a ZFS tmp. This is all with current
from around March 1, and is straight current, no Xen.
Creating tank0/tmp and having it be mounted on /tmp failed the mount
(but created the volume) with some sort of "busy" error. I already had
a tmpfs mounted. Rebooting,
"J. Hannken-Illjes" writes:
>> On 19. Mar 2021, at 21:18, Michael wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:57:18 -0400
>> Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>>> Even in current, zfs has a Big Scary Warning. Lots of people are using
>>> it and it seems quite solid, especially by -current standards. So it
> On 19. Mar 2021, at 21:18, Michael wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:57:18 -0400
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>> Even in current, zfs has a Big Scary Warning. Lots of people are using
>> it and it seems quite solid, especially by -current standards. So it
>> feels times to drop the
Hello,
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:57:18 -0400
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Even in current, zfs has a Big Scary Warning. Lots of people are using
> it and it seems quite solid, especially by -current standards. So it
> feels times to drop the warning.
>
> I am not proposing dropping the warning in 9.
>
