From: Subject: Re: Discussion topics for the coming Bake-A-Thon Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:47:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4C961A50.5010000@panasas.com>

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1040731623==" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Honey@citi.umich.edu, nfsv4@ietf.org, bharrosh@panasas.com To: , Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1040731623== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB58FC.B5812164" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CB58FC.B5812164 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think this is an excellent suggestion. Regardless of the way we decide to go on this, I think it is important that we do something. ________________________________ From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Haynes Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:20 PM To: faibish, sorin Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Peter Honeyman; nfsv4@ietf.org; Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Discussion topics for the coming Bake-A-Thon =20 On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Sorin Faibish wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:12:32 -0400, Boaz Harrosh wrote: =09 =09 On 09/18/2010 02:33 AM, Sorin Faibish wrote: =09 5. Extend cthon tests with callback operations tests (Peter Honeyman) =09 And local/remote truncate torture tests. =09 Sure. Do we need a separate discussion or only this? =09 =09 6. Performance tests - tools and benchmarks (Peter Honeyman) =09 to 6 or 5. Cluster tests. .i.e use of more then one client in concertration =09 to confuse and crash a server. =09 This aside from cthon, just for performance qaulification for the git. Same do we need an additional spot or this is enough (30 min). =09 I will update the agenda with your comments and I assume you will be part of the discussion, even drive it. =09 /Sorin =09 =09 One subject I would like to see us address as a community is where we go with respect to our general testing strategy. We have had discussions the last several years at the Connectathons about the ability to contribute to the cthon test suites and the legal status of the code. Basically, because of the lack of understanding of the licensing, I believe companies are not contributing changes back into the shared code base. We can talk about what it would take to get the license straightened out, but it might be more expedient to acknowledge that the cthon test suite is a low bar and drive the creation of a new test suite. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CB58FC.B5812164 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think this is an excellent suggestion. = Regardless=20 of the way we decide to go on this, I think it is important that we do=20 something.

From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Haynes
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:20 PM
To: = faibish, sorin
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Peter Honeyman;=20 nfsv4@ietf.org; Boaz Harrosh
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Discussion = topics=20 for the coming Bake-A-Thon

On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Sorin Faibish wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:12:32 -0400, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com> = wrote:

On 09/18/2010 02:33 AM, Sorin Faibish=20 wrote:

5. Extend cthon tests with callback = operations=20 tests (Peter Honeyman)

And local/remote = truncate=20 torture tests.
Sure. Do we need a separate = discussion or only=20 this?

6. Performance tests - tools and = benchmarks (Peter=20 Honeyman)

to 6 or 5. Cluster tests. .i.e use of more = then one=20 client in concertration

to confuse and crash a = server.
This=20 aside from cthon, just for performance qaulification for the = git.
Same do=20 we need an additional spot or this is enough (30 min).

I will = update=20 the agenda with your comments and I assume you will be
part of the=20 discussion, even drive it.

/Sorin

One subject I would like to see us address as a community is where = we=20 go

with respect to our general testing strategy. We have had = discussions=20 the

last several years at the Connectathons about the ability to = contribute to=20 the

cthon test suites and the legal status of the code.

Basically, because of the lack of understanding of the licensing, I = believe

companies are not contributing changes back into the shared code=20 base.

We can talk about what it would take to get the license = straightened=20 out,

but it might be more expedient to acknowledge that the cthon test = suite=20 is

a low bar and drive the creation of a new test=20 suite.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CB58FC.B5812164-- --===============1040731623== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 --===============1040731623==--