Re: [nfsv4] Discussion topics for the coming Bake-A-Thon

[<[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Thomas Haynes
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:20 PM
To: faibish, sorin
Cc: [e-mail]; Peter Honeyman; [e-mail]; Boaz
Harrosh
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Discussion topics 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
<[e-mail]> wrote:
	
	

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


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


		    And local/remote truncate torture tests.
		

	Sure. Do we need a separate discussion or only this?
	
	


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


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

		to confuse and crash a server.
		

	This aside from cthon, just for performance qaulification for
the git.
	Same do we need an additional spot or this is enough (30 min).
	
	I will update the agenda with your comments and I assume you
will be
	part of the discussion, even drive it.
	
	/Sorin
	
	



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.