[Lustre-devel] [cdwg] broader Lustre testing

Roman Grigoryev Roman_Grigoryev at xyratex.com
Mon Jul 16 11:31:32 PDT 2012

Hi Christopher,

> The automated regression suite that we use is great.  We should continue
> to improve that over time.  But I would content that it is not, and
> never will be, sufficient to tells us if Lustre is stable.
> I would argue that the regressions tests are, in fact, a very low bar.
> And Lustre is just too complicated, networks are too complicated, we
> have too few developers, to ever come up with an automated suite with
> any thing but a relatively low confidence level in the stability of the
> software.
> And human testers are given a very different set of goals then
> developers.  A developer's job is to make things work.  A tester's is to
> do whatever they can to break it.  And then create a good report of how
> they broke it so the developers can fix it.

Just for proving your statement that it is not enough just execute
automated regression suite (acc-small) for testing quality I would like to
share coverage summary which we got:

958 tests was executed
                     Hit	Total	Coverage
Lines:	        79691	128935	61.8 %
Functions:	6206	7935	78.2 %
Branches:	49287	113914	43.3 %


More information about the lustre-devel mailing list